Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε

justine.storage.googleapis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 309 posts

Re: αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε

#231

Post by phlummox »

remram wrote: post #199
axegon_ wrote: post #74

People... Please stop using foreign alphabets like that! It's a nightmare for those of us who know the alphabets. It took me a good 20 seconds to read the title. And it's magnitudes worse when someone uses cyrillic for instance and it's native to me.

It's not even that, why does this headline deserve to stick out from others on the HN front page? What's the next step, make your title bold or twenty lines long for an unfair click advantage? > 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 I'd rather see submissions stand out for their content.

> What's the next step, make your title bold or twenty lines long for an unfair click advantage?

Hm. Not a bad idea.

Files away as an Unethical LifeHack

You can expect a bold, Cyrillic, ZALGO!͇̺̫̞̤͇̼͋̆̂-fied post about my next paper shortly.

Re: αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε

#232

Post by [deleted] »

remram wrote: post #199
axegon_ wrote: post #74

People... Please stop using foreign alphabets like that! It's a nightmare for those of us who know the alphabets. It took me a good 20 seconds to read the title. And it's magnitudes worse when someone uses cyrillic for instance and it's native to me.

It's not even that, why does this headline deserve to stick out from others on the HN front page? What's the next step, make your title bold or twenty lines long for an unfair click advantage? > 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 I'd rather see submissions stand out for their content.

[deleted]

Re: αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε

#233

Post by Koshkin »

knolax wrote: post #193
jonathanstrange wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ι ⅼіκе іτ аɴԁ аⅼѡауѕ геϲоⅿⅿеɴԁ τо реорⅼе τо τаκе ⅿоге аԁⅴаɴτаɡе оғ ⋃ɴіϲоԁе.

Tʜᴇʀᴇ ᴀʀᴇ ᴀʟʀᴇᴀᴅʏ ᴅᴇᴅɪᴄᴀᴛᴇᴅ ᴄʜᴀʀᴀᴄᴛᴇʀs ғᴏʀ sᴍᴀʟʟ ᴄᴀᴘs

‘ғ‘ looks slightly weird though.

Re: αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε

#234

Post by modeless »

jart wrote: post #211
modeless wrote: post #16

I believe that scripts without a shebang line cannot be executed by execve. They will only run if the shell sees them before the kernel does. It's an annoying limitation of this approach and it wasn't clear to me whether this technique includes a workaround for this. Also the push for code signing everywhere is going to make this harder in the future as well. (I heard a rumor that the workaround to run unsigned execu…

Author here. I considered doing that. Then I learned about things like how MSVC 2017 would wrap the main() function of C programs with telemetry. The push for code signing, retpoline, aslr, etc. worries me too, from a software freedom standpoint, and the same goes for how difficult it's become to build native software from scratch, thanks to the shift from autotools to a whole new set of competitors like bazel, cmake…

> The printf statement in the header will overwrite the first 64-bytes of the executable

This is cool but also a problem for subsequent sharing of the executable. I thought about doing this as well but decided against having the file mutate into a version that wouldn't work on other systems.

Again, super cool project! I love this kind of thing.

Re: αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε

#235

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

lnanek2 wrote: post #217
elmo2you wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which, I would argue, says at least as much about the HN crowd as it does about whoever posted the article under this specific title. EDIT: more specifically .. it's rather ironic how judgmental (and honestly: pretty darn pretentiously) so many here instantly get, yet how there is this implied assumption that the collective wisdom and judgement of this community is above criticism itself, somehow. It might say far mo…

It's probably more virtue signalling than actually being upset. Complaining is a way for the complainer to show off they know the actual pronunciations.

Anti-virtue anti-signalling.

Re: αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε

#236

Post by ant6n »

zozbot234 wrote: post #70
rkv wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.blopeur.com/2020/04/08/Intel-x86-patent-never-en...

The TL;DR seems to be that if you restrict yourself to implementing an ISA from 20 years ago, your chip can indeed be patent free, but that isn't going to run modern software - maybe not even modern x86 32-bit software!

I thought windows runs on anything which supports extensions up to sse2, which is what amd64 includes.

Re: αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε

#237

Post by remram »

IE6 wrote: post #212
remram wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not even that, why does this headline deserve to stick out from others on the HN front page? What's the next step, make your title bold or twenty lines long for an unfair click advantage? > 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 I'd rather see submissions stand out for their content.

I guess for HN OP should have refactored the title to be "Actually Portable Executable" but I thought the whole point of the title was that it's something we can interpret that has been "written in something else" which is fitting given what the article discusses? It's a direct copy/paste from the source and I don't think OP was trying to stand out in any unfair way.

I'm not blaming the HN submitter, but you can also see how bloggers can easily abuse this if whatever unicode characters they put in their title are allowed in the HN submission on the grounds of "it's a direct copy/paste".

Re: αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε

#238

Post by [deleted] »

armitron wrote: post #30
IgorPartola wrote: post #4

This is perverse in the best way possible.

No, this is perverse in the worst way possible. It's incompatible with modern debuggers. It's incompatible with shared libraries. It's limited to a feature-poor "unified" API (that might as well be seen as a crippled VM). It's complex in both interface and implementation. The bad aspects of Unix made even worse. The justifications make no sense whatsoever. It wants to do future-proofing but invents an adhoc "VM" with…

[deleted]

Re: αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε

#239

Post by jart »

als0 wrote: post #158

> If a microprocessor architecture consensus finally exists I don't think that's a good goal to have. Without competing architectures we'll enter a microprocessor dark age. Although the glory days of Alpha and IA64 are over, plenty of that experience was used to bolster today's instruction sets. Diversity is a good thing.

Microarchitectures are the new architectures. The game these days is all about finding a way to make your code go fast on the latest and greatest AVX thing, while still maintaining compatibility for old machines via CPUID. Getting those 10x speedups (sometimes 50x w/ things like crc32 pclmul) is much more fun than caring about things like s390x (i.e. doing IBM's work for them), SH (i.e. folks emulating Sega Saturn on FPGAs for fun), MIPS (hacked home routers), etc.
Post reply on HN