-
This is pretty far off-topic, and most likely to result in a bunch of yelling back and forth between True Believers.
Flagged.
EDIT:
OP didn’t even bother to link to the claimed “increasing evidence”. This is a bait thread. Please don’t.
-
-
It’s possible that many of your coworkers are more politically aware than they let on, and deliberately avoid talking about it in the workplace in order to avoid conflict with people who they need to work with in order to continue earning money.
-
-
-
-
Obviously “off-topic-ness” is subjective, but so far your prediction re: yelling back and forth hasn’t happened.
Probably because everyone on this site is good and right-thinking — or knows well enough to keep his head down and his mouth shut.
(Which has nothing to do with the truth of either side’s beliefs; regardless of truth, why cause trouble for no gain?)
-
To me, the people on this site definitely handle these discussions better. Hard to say how much better given that’s subjective. Let’s try for objective criteria: there’s less flame wars, more people sticking to the facts as they see them vs comments that re pure noise, and moderation techniques usually reduce the worst stuff without censorship of erasing civil dissenters. If those metrics are sound, then Lobsters community are objectively better at political discussions than many sites.
-
-
-
Here are some articles for your reading.
https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/worse-climate/
Some of those articles link to other articles. You can get pretty deep if you want.
-
These all seem to say one thing: climate change is going to be worse faster than some other prediction said. But that does not even remotely address your claim that “organized human life might not be possible by the end of the century and possibly sooner”. What on earth makes you think you know anything about what conditions humans need to organize?
-
-
-
-
For websites: Firefox Sync :-) Everything that isn’t a website or is important enough to have more than 3 copies (laptop, workstation, phone) lives in a keepass file, hosted on a nextcloud instance.
-
Do note that Firefox Sync has a pretty nasty security flaw: your passwords are ultimately protected by your Firefox Account password — so you need to make sure that it’s a high entropy one (like
52ICsHuwrslpDl6fbjdvtv, not likecorrect horse battery staple). You also need to make sure that you never log into your Firefox Account online: Mozilla serve the login UI with JavaScript, which means that they can serve you malicious JavaScript which steals your password (this is worse than a malicious browser, because someone might actually notice a malicious browser executable, but the odds of detecting a single malicious serve of a JavaScript resource are pretty much nil).I use
pass, with git-remote-gcrypt to encrypt thepassrepo itself (unfortunately,passhas a security flaw in that it doesn’t encrypt filenames).-
-
This does not protect you from physical access (if you ever let your computer unlocked). It took me 10 seconds to discover that firefox lets anyone see the plain password of every account.
-
-
Yes, but that doesn’t add any entropy: if your password is ‘love123,’ it’s still low-entropy, even if it’s stretched.
Remember, too, that the client-side stretching is performed by JavaScript Mozilla delivers when you attempt to log in — as I noted, they could deliver malicious JavaScript at a whim (or under duress …).
-
-
-
-
I mostly use Firefox Sync. That and Safari/iCloud. The Single Source of Truth is a paper booklet I bound myself. I used to use an encrypted org-file w/ Emacs, which was really nice, but it was not super convenient (and I did sync w/ Dropbox, just not my keys!).
As for generation, I start rolling 5 d6 and open diceware.txt . The OS X Password Assistant is pretty good, but my preference has shifted to diceware.
-
It’s fine to use Firefox Sync as long as you’re aware of the security issues & take appropriate countermeasures; see my other post. I’m worried that some people don’t realise how broken the Firefox Account model is, and rely on it more than it deserves.
-
Cool, thanks. How many bits of entropy are we talking about? The example you posted looked to be maybe 120? bits. Correct horse.. should be around 50 bits. Is 80 enough?
My main concern so far is the authenticity of the password prompt, it’s just totally unstyled and I can’t tell/remember if it’s really Firefox asking, especially when I haven’t really tried logging into anything (even though it syncs bookmarks too) so I often hit cancel.
-
-
-
-
I just always run into the issue of my eshell buffer becoming huge and getting really slow. I’ve looked online for a way to tell emacs to “chop off” or “empty” the current buffer, with no luck.
-
I just always run into the issue of my eshell buffer becoming huge and getting really slow. I’ve looked online for a way to tell emacs to “chop off” or “empty” the current buffer, with no luck.
I’ve not been an eshell user until I read this article today (we’ll see if I stick with it), but the first thing I tried was the normal emacs editing commands: I selected some text and then hit
C-w(kill-region). It did exactly the right thing.… and then I discovered that it can only remove the output of a single command at a time. That’s really annoying.
It does look like killing & recreating the buffer does work. How very annoying; one would have thought that it’d have been fixed by now.
-
-
I don’t really see the problem here. The cost of mining & materials is already priced into every phone (assuming that manufacturers and their suppliers are profitable). If there are externalities, surely they’ve already been factored in as well by this point in history. If not, then surely we can fix that.
If someone has the income to buy a new phone every few years — that’s his money and his choice.
-
Cool article, but not what I expected from the phrase window manager!
-
-
-
TechCrunch Disrupt 2019: “Electric Blinds Meets Machine Learning Monitored and Controlled via a $5 Droplet!”
-
-
-
-
-
To some extent I agree, however if there is too much code in the constructor it also is quite often an indicator that the code should be refactored. The convenience of what the RAII principle is providing allows also to avoid coding and resource management mistakes/bugs. In c++ exceptions are considered to be used for exceptional circumstances, and they are quite expensive for binary size, at least I made that experience when I used to work on some bigger applications. On the other hand I have been writing a lot of python code in the last few years and exceptions are the defacto way to handle errors. And it’s very much not a problem to use exceptions for non exceptional use cases.
In C++ I rather would argue that the approach of acquiring resources during initialization makes sense because it reduces your need for introducing checks that could lead to wrong code paths especially in the destruction. When applied correctly your program will be more robust if you use the raii principle. I recommend reading the exceptional C++ books by Herb Sutter those are very much still one of the best sources in writing C++ code that is handling exceptions properly.
Complexity in constructors and destructors is something to avoid which is something as I understand is your main criticism to the principle.
Agreed. Many dynamic programming problems are a good fit for backtracking with longjmp/“exceptions” which is how you’d write it in assembly anyway.
Lately (well, sometime in the last couple decades) I’m thinking “exceptions” aren’t a good use for exceptional situations either. That is to say, we’re using exceptions exactly backwards.
One of the best examples I’ve come up with is the out of disk space error. When you’re out of disk space, many programs will give up/crash – but consider the ergonomics of a CAD or video editing tool, that upon save starts moving this multi-gigabyte asset out to disk over what’s perhaps several minutes and then – oops! that partition is full.
If we unwind, the (temporary) file needs to be cleaned up(deleted), the user informed to make room somehow – none of these tasks are straightforward – all the file opens to save this large asset need to be in on it, which is often tricky if the file-saving was done by a different team than the UI team (who handles the exception, and thus deletes the files).
But what if we use a handler? We call the handler, from deep in the file saving code, and tell it “we’re out of disk space”. We can easily offer a callback to “retry”, and a list of any (temporary) file created so far so that they can be deleted (or moved onto another disk, or whatever). This could be provided by the UI team, but if not the operating system could have a crude “abort retry fail” dialog. We live in a multitasking world these days, so that’s probably good enough for a lot of enterprise applications – use goes and moves those files around and then resumes the save (by returning from the handler).
That is exactly the approach taken by Common Lisp’s condition system (which is used for more than just errors, but also for general notifications. It’s extremely powerful, and an illustration of how Lisp really is an industrial-strength language for real problems.