Viewing profile — anderskaseorg
anderskaseorg
HN member- Joined
- Sat, Sep 06, 2014, 5:24 PM UTC
- HN karma
- 2,466
- Public activity
- 343 items
- HN profile
- View on Hacker News ↗
About anderskaseorg
Recent public activity
-
comment
Comment #48681034
You have ignored the much larger space and time cost of constructing the range minimum query tree in the first place. Furthermore, nobody would arbitrarily cut off a problem at “bi…
-
comment
Comment #47642622
The “next level” button takes you to the next level even if you haven’t solved that level’s prerequisites.
-
comment
Comment #47583633
Right, the public was able to spend manual effort hand-auditing one specific tarball after it had already been singled out as suspicious for other reasons. In order for verificatio…
-
comment
Comment #47566552
The maintainer can verify the correspondence between source and release, but the public has been deprived of this verifiability. This matters. Consider the XZ Utils compromise wher…
-
comment
Comment #47505948
The point of trusted publishing is supposed to be that the public can verifiably audit the exact source from which the published artifacts were generated. Breaking that chain via a…
-
comment
Comment #44373237
There is a well-defined reload point—it’s the `subsecond::call` wrapper around `tick()`. But the hypothetical design that you seem to have in mind where this doesn’t exist would no…
-
comment
Comment #44360748
Yes, uv has a standard permissive open source license (Apache-2.0 OR MIT): https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/?tab=readme-ov-file#license
-
comment
Comment #42122273
Of course (but that’s not relevant to the original scenario, where the programmer is hypothetically not aware that the read lock is still being held, let alone that they could manu…
-
comment
Comment #42122034
Yes, allowing this to execute would be very unsound: let lock = RwLock::new(Box::new(111)); let r: &i32 = &**lock.read().unwrap(); // points to 111 *lock.write().unwrap() = Box::ne…
-
comment
Comment #42121804
Clippy already has an error for this pattern with Mutex. It should be trivial to extend it to cover RwLock. error: calling `Mutex::lock` inside the scope of another `Mutex::lock` c…
-
comment
Comment #41773186
There are plenty of systems that sacrifice consistency even while the network is fully connected, in the name of performance—for example, DNS, or any system with a caching proxy se…
-
comment
Comment #41773143
You’re certainly allowed to make the client a more active participant in your consensus protocol, but then it needs to play by the same rules if you want the system to have guarant…
-
comment
Comment #41771764
They’re doing a slow phase-out over a long time to try to avert a wave of bad publicity that threatens their browser monopoly, but that timeline has already started as of June. htt…
-
comment
Comment #41369655
The mechanism is a clever application of quines (self-reproducing programs), first explained in the classic lecture “Reflections on Trusting Trust” by Ken Thompson: https://dl.acm.…
-
comment
Comment #41241445
When the term “undefined behavior” appears within the C standard, yes, that’s what it means. There is no way for another document to alter the meaning of “undefined behavior” as it…
-
comment
Comment #41206537
The jurisdictional status of .local and other standards-reserved special use domains is explained by RFC 6761 section 3: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6761#section-3 And…
-
comment
Comment #41166766
If a program’s behavior is undefined in one specification and defined in a second, then insofar as both specifications apply to it, that is defined behavior, not undefined behavior…
-
comment
Comment #41105186
It seems like you think I’m saying that all compilers are required to recognize all forms of UB and format your hard drive. Of course not; some UB in one specification may be defin…
-
comment
Comment #41104752
You may not like it, and it’s within your rights not to like it, but the reality is that compilers do treat UB this way , and it’s not “grossly dishonest FUD” to point out that thi…
-
comment
Comment #41101833
Both (unsafe) Rust and LLVM have their own concepts of undefined behavior ( https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/behavior-considered-unde... , https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#und…
-
comment
Comment #41097850
Note that the “unsafe read beyond of death” trick is considered undefined behavior in the Rust and LLVM memory model, even if it’s allowed by the underlying hardware. Like any unde…
-
comment
Comment #41076533
Here’s a message where you can see what this feature looks like (no login required): https://chat.zulip.org/#narrow/stream/101-design/topic/clock... (Note that the sender opts in t…
-
comment
Comment #41076519
Not yet, though there’s been some progress on developing this feature. You can upvote https://github.com/zulip/zulip/issues/23995 to help us prioritize it.
-
comment
Comment #41076494
We’d like to fix this! You can upvote https://github.com/zulip/zulip/issues/21881 to help us prioritize this feature.
-
comment
Comment #40971088
It worked in all major browsers until it was removed around 2017–2019. I personally used it, as part of MIT’s authentication systems.