Same in Python, Rust, Haskell and probably many others.
But apparently JS does work that way, that is its filter
always iterates over everything and returns a new array and not some iterator object.
Same in Python, Rust, Haskell and probably many others.
But apparently JS does work that way, that is its filter
always iterates over everything and returns a new array and not some iterator object.
Hasn’t Google already made advances through its Alpha Geometry AI?? Admittedly, that’s a geometry setting which may be easier to code than other parts of Math and there isn’t yet a clear indication AI will ever be able to reach a certain level of creativity that the human mind has, but at the same time it might get there by sheer volume of attempts.
Wanted to focus a bit on this. The thing with AlphaGeometry and AlphaProof is that they really treat doing math as a game, not unlike chess. For example, AlphaGeometry has a basic set of rules, it can apply them and it knows when it is done. And when it is done, you can be 100% sure that the solution is correct, because the rules of the game are known; the 28/42 score reported in the article is really four perfect scores and three zeros. Those systems do use LLMs, but they really are only there to suggest to the system what to try doing next. There is a very enlightening picture in the AlphaGeometry paper here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06747-5#Fig1
You can automatically verify correctness of code the same way. For example Lean, the language AlphaProof uses internally, can be used for general programming. In general, we call similar programming techniques formal methods. But most people don’t do this, since this is more time-consuming than normal programming, and in many cases we don’t even know how to define the goal of our code (how to define correct rendering in a game?). So this is only really done when the correctness of the program is critical, like famously they verified the code of the automatic metro in Paris this way. And so most people don’t try to make programming AI work this way.
It seems OP wanted to pass the file name to -k
, but this parameter takes the password itself and not a filename:
-k password
The password to derive the key from. This is for compatibility with previous versions of OpenSSL. Superseded by the -pass argument.
So, as I understand, the password would be not the first line of /etc/ssl/private/etcBackup.key
, but the string /etc/ssl/private/etcBackup.key
itself. It seems that -kfile /etc/ssl/private/etcBackup.key
or -pass file:/etc/ssl/private/etcBackup.key
is what OP wanted to use.
I like btdu which is essentially ncdu, but works in a way that is useful even if advanced btrfs features (CoW, compression etc.) are used.
I am afraid you are still a bit misled; WireGuard is exactly what they use for the demo video. In general the underlying protocol does not matter, since the vulnerability is about telling the system to direct the packages to the attacker, completely bypassing the VPN.
I really need to try out Mercury one day. When we did a project in Prolog at uni, it felt cool, but also incredibly dynamic in a bad way. There were a few times when we misspelled some clause, which normally would be an error, but in our case it just meant falsehood. We then spent waaay to much time searching for these. I can’t help but think that Mercury would be as fun as Prolog, but less annoying.
I actually use from time to time the Bower email client, which is written in Mercury.
My understanding is that all issues are patched in the mentioned releases, the config flag is not needed for that.
The config flag has been added because supporting clients with different endianness is undertested and most people will never use it. So if it is going to generate vulnerabilities, it makes sense to be able to disable it easily, and to disable it by default on next major release. Indeed XWayland had it disabled by default already, so only the fourth issue (ProcRenderAddGlyphs
) is relevant there if that default is not changed.
I got curious and decided to check this out. This value was set to the current one in 2009: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/341c87bf346f57748230628c5ad6ee69219250e8 The reasoning makes sense, but I guess is not really relevant to our situation, and according to the newest version of the comment 2^16 is not a hard limit anymore.
Interesting. I looked this up and I think that in Poland, the wait time in let’s say Warsaw peaked at like 2 months during pandemic, but is around 2 weeks now.
Many people living in big cities will have their exams in smaller WORDs anyway, as the pass rates tend to be higher there (not a surprise, less traffic means an easier exam). Apparently in some WORDs you can even get a new attempt the same day after failing one.
In Poland:
The bootloader is stored unencrypted on your disk. Therefore it is trivial to modify, the other person just needs to power down your PC, take the hard drive out, mount it on their own PC and modify stuff. This is the Evil Maid attack the other person talked about.
You could make an argument that not using banking apps decreases your security, since most banks use either SMS or those apps as the second factor while confirming the operations. It is true that the apps are of varying quality, but SMS is not really a serious alternative. Some banks do have apps that are limited to confirming operations, and one bank where I live did recently start accepting U2F, which is amazing news.
Same for Polish. One funny thing I’ve noticed is that in one of the examples, the person tries to stay at a hotel, and the price is clearly in the old currency, which has not been used since 1997.
IANAL nor intelligent, but after skimming the text of the directive I felt like the definition of damage is very limited. In particular, if I understand correctly:
would not be covered by this directive, this directive is only about a human being hurt in some way,
would be covered in case of “your game installs a kernel-level anticheat and the anticheat breaks PCs”, but not in the case of “you uploaded an upgrade to a firmware of the washing machine you produced and it bricked the machines”; the directive is not about a product breaking, but about the product breaking your health, other property or data,
is basically the exact case this directive covers.