“do it again, I wasn’t looking”

  • 0 Posts
  • 19 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: September 25th, 2023

help-circle


  • You’re remembering correctly, every other logic gate can be built from NAND gates, which is the foundation of this sort of minimal-instruction-set exercise. Beyond that, you need to be able to move data and change your program counter (jump, often conditionally). Then, if you want parity with modern instruction sets beyond just being turning complete, you need return and interrupt for control flow.



  • Bookmarking your comment so I can come back to it in a couple hours, if I hopefully remember to.

    But yes, almost. I don’t think the interrupt is necessary and the return isn’t under certain architectures. I have a doc on my computer somewhere where I was investigating what the absolute minimum was to make a turning complete machine and, to my recollection, there was only 4-6 instructions that were absolutely necessary. The ones I remember off the top of my head are NAND, MOV, JUMPIF, and then I believe I included NOP in accordance with some principle. RET and INT were convenience features in this design.




  • You know what’s ironic about all this is, as someone who has seen game dev pitches (not good ones), they arguably had their shit together more than most aspiring game devs. Looking back at the skeletals, ya know they actually may have had a chance of getting somewhere. They knew absolutely nothing about the technical side, but hardly any game devs actually do. They probably still stand a better chance today of developing this than some game studios asset-mashing in Unity or Unreal. That’s the true state of game dev.



  • yeah OP needs to provide this detail specifically as it changes everything.

    If the Ethernet jack was not on a desk, then it wasn’t there for them to use. If they unplugged a cable to make it accessible, that is unfortunately enough to be considered tampering.

    If an Ethernet jack was not expressly provided, unoccupied, at the technology access station then yes the access to Ethernet information facilities was unauthorized and illegitimate and could carry legal ramifications. Say what you want about proprietary wifi drivers, you get the access you are given and any attempts to gain further access without authorization are defined as intrusion attempts and will more likely than not be treated as such to some degree. Because honestly, the libraries aren’t funded enough to have great security and Ethernet security is harder than WiFi security in practice, despite the challenges being characterized by the same principles.


  • If I were to fully elaborate, I’d be typing for hours, so I’ll sum up:

    • pip - default behavior is to install to system-wide site packages. In a venv, it will try to upgrade/uninstall system packages without notice/consent unless you specify --require-virtualenv. Multiple things can fuck up your ENV to make the python binaries point to system-wide, while your terminal will still show you as in a venv. Also why TF would package metadata files need to be executable? Bad practice, -1/10
    • nix - they acknowledged years ago that they should probably have some kind of package signing and perhaps an SBOM or similar mechanism, but then did nothing to implement it and just said “oh well, guess we’re vulnerable to supply chain attacks, best not to think about it”
    • brew - installing packages parallel to your system packages manager, without containers. My chief complaint here is that brew is a secondary package manager that people might treat as a “set and forget” for some packages, rarely updating them. So what happens when a standard library used by a brew package is vuln? A naive Linux user might update their system packages but totally forget to update brew. And when updating brew, you can easily hit max_open_file_descriptors because kitchen sink

    From there, it’s all extremely nit-picky and paranoid-fueled-- basically, none of the package managers I mentioned are conducive, in my eyes at least, to a secure and intuitive compute environment.

    Unfortunately, there’s not much I can do about it except bang pots and pans and throw maintainers under buses when the issue that has been present for years rears it’s ugly head. Because they are the only ones who can change this, and pressure is the only thing that might motivate them to.






  • I’m not a lawyer, but under the definition of “Infrastructure” on page 5, they state that they will construe WhatsApp Infrastructure and Partner Infrastructure accordingly, which to my untrained eye is prima facie evidence to their acknowledgement that these are separate systems, at least one (the Partner’s) of which is not under their custodianship and not named as subject of the first stipulation you quoted. In other words “do not make it so WhatsApp’s own infrastructure would run GPL material” and potentially “do not send GPL material through our systems”

    The second one I interpret to mean “nothing with licenses that apply that runtime operation is copy left”



  • I created a GitLab account long before they implemented this, but never used it. Went to post an issue related to self-hosted GitLab on their issue tracker, and it told me my account was banned. I wrote an email to support and they essentially said “an automated system identified your account as a bot and banned you during an account clean up some years ago to cut back on malicious users”. I informed them that this was not at all reasonable, as I’ve never even posted anything on any GitLab account, and that I would be advising my organization to never pay for any GitLab product or service unless legal writes up the contract terms, because I have no faith in them as a vendor.

    Seriously, fuck GitLab. And if anyone from that org wants to discuss this with me, they can pipe their email to /dev/null