Haskell types are not strong enough for that, maybe Lean or Coq would get there.

Don’t Trust a Path Across Two Syscalls

Wasn’t this a common knowledge among application developers? File system is volatile, and can change any time, do not assume persistence of it. I heard about the principle from ghcup developer a few years ago.

Indeed.

I am not a topologist, but I can try…

A space (shape) is contractible if you can “contract” (shrink) it to a point without cutting, pinching or punching through holes. For example, a mattress is contractible, since you can shrink it to the center - each point can follow the line to the center, continuously. Meanwhile, a doughnut, a circle or a hollow sphere are not contractible, you can never remove the inner “hole” to shrink to a point without cutting.

In general, any dimensional sphere is not contractible… Until it is - infinite dimensional sphere is contractible. Somehow, it loses the “hollow space” inside.

Is this opinion piece implying that quantum computing researchers should stop researching because current quantum computers are currently less than proof of concept? Is technology supposed to be fully mature from the beginning?

I learmed that QC can be used for general search problems, so it could get used for more efficient web browsing, etc. But those are relatively more difficult tasks, I guess.

I was like, why aren’t you publishing it to a conference/journal if it is good? Then realized that you are doing exactly that. Kudos for the work, looking forward to the progress!

I don’t think Signal trusts the AWS server either, that’s the point of E2EE encryption.

I am realizing I were only good at tests… So sad that I am one of the dumbest and just managed to fool some people with grades. But that does not help with real life.

It lists no alternative to actual(-budget) :( I don’t have time to create my own alternative, maybe I should go back to spreadsheets?

Since reward system does not work for me, instead I punish myself whenever I could not finish tasks in time. I do not deserve any rewards anyway. Dunno why I feel so miserable…

Exactly, C++ is what came to my mind when I saw this. Some people don’t put references??

Security by obscurity does not work, because people are only so creative up to a point. Hence, there are only handful of configurations for the attacker to try out.

This contrasts to e.g. 128-bit secure encryption, which involves trying 2^128 times to break it - which is a number with whopping 38 zeros. It takes 10^22 years to break it with trying at 1GHz rate. It is simply incomparable, and adding a few bits of security by obscure combination is simply not worth it.

Yet, so many people and organizations seem to prefer obscurity to actual security.

Oh, do you happen to be a physicist or an analyst?

Same. Maybe I… gasp… like trains?

I wonder if we can really trust the TEEs. Isn’t it their hardware where they are quite free to do what they want? Also it looks very vulnerable to the side-channel attacks.

deleted by creator

I feel like they are confounding LLMs AND general AI/ML. The latter is useful in many areas, while the former is mostly hype imo.

That’s such a way to dismiss the theory and academia

Interesting, is it difficult for people to admit they are wrong? As someone who’s almost always wrong, I cannot fathom why it would be so hard to admit wrongness.