← Feed

Posts

• Post #3704085

  @r@glauca.space @whitequark@social.treehouse.systems I would not be willing to deal with user-provided images unless I was at a company with lawyers on staff. If I’m not, I’m either outsourcing the whole task or not allowing user-provided images or videos. Text only.

• Post #3701745

  @ireneista@adhd.irenes.space Ah, I thought you were complaining about the amount of boilerplate required.

• Post #3701615

  @ireneista@adhd.irenes.space Vulkan is designed to be used by large programs and libraries for which the boilerplate is irrelevant.

• Post #3639864

  If an IPS is found to break some feature of TLS, browsers should force that feature on in the next update, with no opt-out. “Nobody can connect to the Internet” is, hopefully, enough to force changes.

• Post #3639863

  RE: https://defcon.social/@thedarktangent/116823753926022604 As this post shows very well, hosting user-generated content has very real economy of scale. Abuse prevention and response is very expensive to do well, and the consequences of not doing it well are severe. Even end-to-end encrypted apps like Signal still need to be able to respond to abuse reports!

• Post #3639862

  If I had a project like Mesa or virglrenderer, I would pay a premium for a CI service that offered bare-hardware runners for various embedded boards that are safe to run on not-yet-reviewed contributions.

• Post #1605218

  If one is going to be using a whole server for one task, it’s best (performance-wise) for that one task to have all the drivers. So DPDK + SPDK. Of course, that’s a lot of development work, but only because this was not the model from the beginning.

• Post #1605217

  What are best practices for situations where one has reason to suspect there is a security vulnerability in a project, but cannot confirm it? Especially when there have been similar vulnerabilities in the past, and one is about to file public issues that will tell others exactly where to look.

• Post #1605212

  It’s fine to not allow LLM-generated, or even LLM-assisted, code contributions. Rejecting valid reports of security vulnerabilities because they were generated with LLM assistance is foolish. All it does is make life easy for criminals and cyberweapon vendors. For what it is worth, OpenBSD seems to have exactly this policy. They reject LLM-generated code, but promptly fixed a remote DoS found by Claude Mythos Preview and confirmed by Anthropic.

• Post #128018

  @petrillic@hachyderm.io @cliffle@hachyderm.io Common Lisp actually was designed with the idea that certain exceptions (called “conditions”) would be handled interactively. Imagine attaching a debugger to a production server!