IIRC, the original reason was to avoid people making custom parsing directives using comments. Then people did shit like "foo": "[!-- number=5 --]"
instead.
IIRC, the original reason was to avoid people making custom parsing directives using comments. Then people did shit like "foo": "[!-- number=5 --]"
instead.
Some hackers DoS the code. This guy DoS’s the corporate process.
Nobody going to admit to being the pigeon? Because that’s me.
Valid, but if it needs to be decided, then there should be something concrete scheduled to do that followup when people are back in.
Pi Pico SDK does. Well, the version for debugging symbols, anyway. Regular executable is .uf2.
I’ve actually met him. Pretty chill guy, but is completely confused by his Internet fame.
There will likely always be a job for someone who has good Perl knowledge. There’s no good reason to start a new project in it, though.
Eh, it’s a language that rewards deep knowledge. I like that. But it’s not coming back.
As a Perl developer: not going to happen.
We tend to forget about it these days, but the Unix permissions model was criticized for decades for being overly simplistic. One user having absolute authority, with limited ways to delegate specific authority to other users, is not a good model for multi-user operating systems. At least not in environments with more than a few users.
A well-configured sudo or SELinux can overcome this, which is one reason we don’t bring it up much anymore. We also changed the whole model, where most people have individual PCs, and developers are often in their own little VM environment on a larger server.
It’s entirely possible to parse HTML in PCRE. You shouldn’t, but it is possible. The language stopped being strictly regular a long time ago and is entirely capable of doing it.
I don’t. It may look less like line noise, but it doesn’t unravel the underlying complexity of what it does. It’s just wordier without being helpful.
Edit: also, these alternative syntaxes tend to make some easy cases easy, but they have no idea what to do with more complicated cases. Try making nested capture groups with these, for instance. It gets messy fast.
JSON numeric encoding is perfectly capable of precise encoding to arbitrary decimal precision. Strings are easier if you don’t want to fuck around with the parser, though.
If your home router blocked incoming connections on IPv4 by default now, then it’s likely to continue doing so for IPv6. At least, I would hope so. The manufacturer did a bad job if otherwise.
You can get exactly the same benefit by blocking non-established/non-related connections on your firewall. NAT does nothing to help security.
Edit: BTW–every time I see this response of “NAT can prevent external access”, I severely question the poster’s networking knowledge. Like to the level where I wonder how you manage to config a home router correctly. Or maybe it’s the way home routers present the interface that leads people to believe the two functions are intertwined when they aren’t.
Governments are not anyone’s issue other than other governments. If your threat model is state actors, you’re SOL either way.
That’s a silly way to look at it. Governments can be spying on a block of people at once, or just the one person they actually care about. One is clearly preferable.
Again, the obscurity benefit of NAT is so small that literally any cost outweighs it.
I don’t see where you get a cost from it.
We forced decisions into a more centralized, less private Internet for reasons that can be traced directly to NAT.
If you want to hide your hosts, just block non-established, non-related incoming connections at your firewall. NAT does not help anything besides extending IPv4’s life.
But why bother? “Let’s make my network slower and more complicated so it works like a hack on the old thing”.
So instead we open up a bunch of other issues.
With CGNAT, governments still spy on individual addresses when they want. Since those individual addresses now cover a whole bunch of people, they effectively spy on large groups, most of whom have nothing to do with whatever they’re investigating. At least with IPv6, it’d be targetted.
NAT obscurity comes at a cost. Its gain is so little that even a small cost eliminates its benefit.
IIRC, there are some sloppy ISPs who are needlessly handing out prefixes dynamically. ISPs seem to be doing everything they can to fuck this up, and it seems more incompetence than malice. They are hurting themselves with this more than anybody else.
Guys, I think Marx might have been onto something with the theory of alienation.