The_Decryptor

That’s “Extended ASCII”, basic ASCII only has upper and lowercase latin characters and things like <, =, >, and ?

And probably half of the control codes are still used, mostly in their original form too, teletype systems. They’re just virtual these days.

A place I worked at did it by duplicating and modifying a function, then commenting out the existing one. The dev would leave their name and date each time, because they never deleted the old commented out functions of course, history is important.

They’d also copy the source tree around on burnt CDs, so good luck finding out who had the latest copy at any one point (Hint: It was always the lead dev, because they wouldn’t share their code, so “merging to main” involved giving them a copy of your source tree on a burnt disk)

Is it really malicious if you do it by yourself, to yourself?

What’s creating these shortcuts though, and why isn’t that considered a risk?

For a while Google let you blacklist domains from search results, fantastic feature so of course they killed it off.

How about a 6.4TB sqlite database?

https://boyter.org/posts/searchcode-bigger-sqlite-than-you/

They’d run afoul of the whole “editing your own article” restrictions.

The “attack” is from the host side, any remote attack is theoretical and would depend on exploiting the software on the host first to then gain access to the BT chip.

I take that there isn’t much motivation in moving to 128 because it’s big enough; it’s only 8 cycles (?) to fill a 512 (that can’t be right?).

8 cycles would be an eternity on a modern CPU, they can achieve multiple register sized loads per cycle.

If we do see a CPU with 128 bit addresses anytime soon, it’ll be something like CHERI, where the extra bits are used for flags.

I think CHERI is the only real attempt at a 128 bit system, but it uses the upper 64 bits for metadata, so the address space is still 64 bits.

You just leave those bits out when making your own CPU.

NTFS was designed back in the mid 90s, when the plan was to have the single NT kernel with different subsystems on top of it, some of those layers (i.e. POSIX) needed case sensitivity while others (Win32 and OS/2) didn’t.

It only looks odd because the sole remaining subsystem in use (Win32) barely makes use of any of the kernel features, like they’re only just now enabling long file paths.

Qt is overkill if all you’re using it for is to create a window you render into, something like SDL would be better.

They were a bit too public with “Dual_EC_DRBG”, to the point where everybody just assumed it had a backdoor and avoided it, the NSA ended up having to pay people to use it.

1. If your ISP doesn’t do IPv6, then you’re fine (But should look for a better ISP)
2. If your ISP does do IPv6, then you should install the patch now (Unless you’re not using IPv6 on the LAN, in which case you’re fine but get a better router/sysadmin)
3. If your ISP does do IPv6, but you can’t install the patch for whatever reason, only then should you disable IPv6

The problem is people recommend disabling IPv6 for random unrelated reasons (Like gamers claiming it decreases your IPv4 latency), so yeah MS is going to be insistent that users not fiddle with things they don’t understand because it’s really unlikely they’ll go back and restore that config when it doesn’t actually help.