11–20 of 36 posts
back in 90s on windows, our secret directory used to be alt+255 (it looks like a space but not space i think)
This is another good reason to have a text editor you really trust, which can show you these things. Whether it's different line-endings or weird invisible space stuff, I know I can just open it in Vim and figure out what's really going on pretty quickly. Wasted a lot of time earlier in my life on that nonsense (:
I've got my Emacs set up to display in "bold, fluo foregound and a dark background underlined by a pink line" (yes, literally that obnoxious) any character which is not part of a list of characters I consider to be acceptable. And it's configured to show any "zero width" character as if it had a width. So any "invisible character" as well as any "invisible zero width character" does appear as a black square, underlined with a pink line.
And that for any buffer/file.
This is another good reason to have a text editor you really trust, which can show you these things. Whether it's different line-endings or weird invisible space stuff, I know I can just open it in Vim and figure out what's really going on pretty quickly. Wasted a lot of time earlier in my life on that nonsense (:
I agree with you. I've got my Emacs set up to display in "bold, fluo foregound and a dark background underlined by a pink line" (yes, literally that obnoxious) any character which is not part of a list of characters I consider to be acceptable. And it's configured to show any "zero width" character as if it had a width. So any "invisible character" as well as any "invisible zero width character" does appear as a blac…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you. I've got my Emacs set up to display in "bold, fluo foregound and a dark background underlined by a pink line" (yes, literally that obnoxious) any character which is not part of a list of characters I consider to be acceptable. And it's configured to show any "zero width" character as if it had a width. So any "invisible character" as well as any "invisible zero width character" does appear as a blac…
Can you share that config? Sounds useful!
I configured all that literally years ago so I don't remember where's what but here's what I've got:
;; probably cargo-culted from somewhere
(update-glyphless-char-display 'glyphless-char-display-control '((format-control . empty-box) (no-font . empty-box)))
;; See https://emacs.stackexchange.com/questions/65108
(set-face-background 'glyphless-char "purple")
(markchars-global-mode)
(defface markchars-heavy
'((t :underline "magenta"))
"Heavy face for `markchars-mode' char marking."
:group 'markchars)
(and, yup, I know it's overkill but I like it that way)
avg=ㅤ=>ㅤ.reduce((ㅤㅤ,ㅤㅤㅤ)=>ㅤㅤ+ㅤㅤㅤ)/ㅤ.length
avg([3,1,4,1,5])
2.8
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is maybe more when QA doesn't mess with developers, than when it does.
If QA doesn’t do it malicious users and crackers will.
It doesn't do much on its own. I feel like it could, but the most effective use case I've come up with it you can invisibly plant a piece of code in some piece of text, then later on run another script that looks for that piece of code and runs it. I'm guessing that splitting the code up like this would make it harder to detect (not to mention that this code could even reside in other programs' comments undetected).