121–130 of 140 posts
From code comments, what I understood (most likely in an incorrect way) is: - Use Metal shader code to make process page table accessible to shaders via page protection layer bug exploited using return oriented programming (ROP) - Use Metal shader code to acquire read/write access to physical memory - Use Metal shaders to access the kernel page table - Deals with ASLR to find the kernel base address - Obtains process…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Lina is a pseudonym for Marcan Is there any evidence for this? I've seen a bunch of people say it on HN.
The fact that the comment you replied to is buried shows that it's probably too close to be true and makes people uncomfortable. Are we supposed to believe the character is literally an animated humanoid with animal ears? Is it not ok to question who the human entity behind it is? In any case, it's super easy to spot when it's a man pretending to be a woman, in case that's the source of the controversy.
> The fact that the comment you replied to is buried shows that it's probably too close to be true and makes people uncomfortable
"People think I'm an asshole, that means I must be right"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> On the other hand, that's a years salary for many people. It's several years salary for many people.
But not for people with this level of applied skills. How many people do you think could pull this off? I certainly couldn't. Could you?
Perhaps not for people with this level of applied skills who live in the US. But salaries vary drastically around the world, and remote jobs are not feasible for everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that the comment you replied to is buried shows that it's probably too close to be true and makes people uncomfortable. Are we supposed to believe the character is literally an animated humanoid with animal ears? Is it not ok to question who the human entity behind it is? In any case, it's super easy to spot when it's a man pretending to be a woman, in case that's the source of the controversy.
The other guy makes some good points, but this is crazy: > The fact that the comment you replied to is buried shows that it's probably too close to be true and makes people uncomfortable "People think I'm an asshole, that means I must be right"
If you say something nonsensical or incorrect, people ignore you. But if they laugh or get irate, then you're probably on to something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re pretty much correct. GPUs are a very interesting attack vector. Especially as more computation is being pushed to GPUs, and they’re not always well isolated.
Do you know what's the original vulnerability that allowed ROP?
Press down to see the slides
Lina is not a random emerging VTuber who randomly stumbled upon the bug and found an exploit technique that can be applied to exploit the bug; she is actually highly skilled at exploit things...
Cool, but this is a technology discussion website, not a personality discussion website.
For example, this is the same person who’s working on Asahi Linux for ARM macs. This means that they probably know what their talking about and this is gonna be a good article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
" Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting. " " Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It's just a guideline.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
" Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Respectfully: do you genuinely believe that guideline had this kind of presentation in mind, or the very common tedium of poorly built websites that occurs frequently on amateur tech posts. Even the examples provided by the rule you quoted lend to the latter. The format is indeed relevant.
Internet threads have a tendency to get stuck on annoyances that aren't pertinent to the actual topic. It's a bit like a branch getting snagged at the edge of a creek: all sorts of detritus accumulates around the branch, clogging the flow. This isn't just about comments—arguably a bigger problem is that upvotes, since such subthreads invariably attract a lot of those.
On HN, we don't have any rule against going off topic per se, because offtopic tangents can sometimes be fun and interesting—usually when they're unpredictable, i.e. when they're about something specific that doesn't get talked about much, or maybe has never been talked about.
But threads about presentation errors, usability errors, and so on, are highly predictable because they happen a lot, and also because they're annoying and people tend to express annoyance in the same ways over and over. This becomes repetitive and repetition is the enemy of curiosity [1], so it follows from HN's primary principle [2] that we should try to avoid them.
One thing to understand about that guideline is that it's not denying the correctness of the annoyance! Of course you're right that formatting, presentation, usability, design, etc., are important. The issue is that discussions tend to get clogged by comments about these things, precisely because they are annoying. I'm as annoyed by them as anyone and I think most of us are.
Our challenge as a community is to experience those annoyances and process them however we process them but not to complain about them in the comments—rather to stay on topic (or at least on something unpredictable), not because crappy websites etc. deserve better, but because we want to prioritize interesting conversations about interesting things to read.
(I should add that when I say "crappy websites" I'm not talking about the OP - I only spent a couple seconds looking at it and didn't personally experience annoyance. I just mean we all have our triggers and they work more or less the same way in everyone.)
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Respectfully: do you genuinely believe that guideline had this kind of presentation in mind, or the very common tedium of poorly built websites that occurs frequently on amateur tech posts. Even the examples provided by the rule you quoted lend to the latter. The format is indeed relevant.
starting your posts with "respectfully" does nothing if the first thing after that is questioning the parents genuine response to your original post. respectfully, get lost with that kind of bs
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The entire scope of my comment is about the message - the only one talking about the person is you. I find that disgusting.