There are lots of missing bits here. For instance, you seem to assume that a = sign(a) * abs(a). Why?
And both sign and abs are not defined. So you say abs(a) >= 0 and sign(a) \in {-1, 1}. Why? For instance, what is sign(0)?
Are you assuming a construction of integers from the natural numbers such that for any n < 0, there is an integer abs(n) and n = -1 * abs(n)? If so, don't you need to include that (or at least reference it)?
Later you assume that all integers are even or odd. Why?
These are niggling details that don't matter when you have chalk in hand, but do matter when speaking to a system like lean4.
Just been beaten by a bug in a production system... hidden in code silently for more than 10 years !
It just mean that for 10 years, this codepath has not been taken (The conditions for this specific error case was not met for 10 years) :-(
Actually, it would be a good monitoring information to know which path are "hot" (almost always taken since the beginning), "warm" (from time to time) or "cold" (never executed). It could help build a targetd trust. I guess that it might be possible for VM languages (like based on JVM) because the VM could monitor this... but it might be harder for machine code
This could be interesting. Unfortunately it'd be a performance hog to do. Some kinds of things do work with this (see performance guided optimisation in compilers)
Teams is deeply integrated with Office (including OneDrive for file storage/sharing, Outlook for meetings), more than any other Chat App... I guess it's a good thing in general but it's also an unfair competitive advantage (using "priviledged API" I think)
I do use Nginx in docker for (personal hobby) dockerized applications... but I didn't fully understand some of your reasons:
* AFAIK "docker exec NGINX_DOCKER nginx -s reload" works to 'hot reload' configurations
* You're right that "in place NGINX binary upgrade" won't work. The "bright side" of this problem is that the "NGINX container binary" is immutable and can be easily "rebooted" if any corruption occures (instead of having to reinstall everything). For hobby websites (including the condo mail server), the downtime is acceptable (not much traffic, not really 24/7, fast restart, few versions of NGINX every year...)
For me: having an isolated (dockerized) NGINX is easier to manage (like a dockerized mail server) because it limits the amount of processes "on bare linux with files everywhere" and make is easier to backup/replace/upgrade (just start a new docker with a new version). YMMV
* Docker containers can be modified at runtime, it is just more involved to do so. Hot-reloading inside Docker works best if you mount a host directory.
It drives the container philosophy to an ad absurdum. When I serve paying customers then I refrain from what is possible. I try to stick to what appears to be the simplest thing.
* I haven't encountered a corrupted Nginx binary, so far. I think that it is very unlikely to happen. I consider my Nginx binary "almost immutable" even without Docker. Since I am the only one working on my VPS I also know who to blame if that's not the case :D
I see Docker as an amazing fit for isolating business applications. They tend to have many dependencies (often less stable than evergreen libraries like libc), get continuously update and deployed.
Usually, a feature is included in a product if the marketing show that it will grow the business more than the cost of the feature. Maybe we can try the same idea ?
"We identified this vulnerability, and it will impact X % of our customer and Y % will leave (+ reputation damage) so we will loose BIGNUMBER $. However, we can correct it for SMALLNUMBER $ in Z days. Decision ?"
It's absolutely hard, but you need to advertise and promote security for it to stay relevant, internally and externally. The moment it becomes the "default" I think the only way is downward.
The marketing dept should do something for that, that's their job. If Apple can tout privacy as a feature, Microsoft can find a way to have security as a shiny feature on their keynote, with internal projects rewarded for increasing security by x% etc.
With the increasing number of breaches over the years, it is 100% a feature. I see it as insurance: ideally nothing happens, but if/when something happens the company should be ready to compensate for damages.
> In the months and years following the SolarWinds attack, Microsoft took a number of actions to mitigate the SAML risk. One of them was a way to efficiently detect fallout from such a hack. The advancement, however, was available only as part of a paid add-on product known as Sentinel.
So you sell me a submarine with screen doors, avoid fixing it for years, cripple internal processes that would fix it, and then you want to charge me for a water alarm? That's chutzpah.
Also identification is one thing, but good security should mean the vulnerability didn't occur in the first place.
Then you also need to get budget for identifying vulnerabilities.
After that you need budget to research how costly the vulnerability could be.
But before getting those budgets you need budget again to propose all of that and data to prove its value.
Unless you use your own time to do all of that or accidentally stumble upon something.
I think the only realistic way to get any sort of budget is if a deep enough incident actually happens. And this will only last maybe for a year until most of the decisionmakers have been rotated with new ones wanting to only deliver again.
Actually, another problem might be GDPR: I have found my username... and that is a clearly a PII because it's directly and univocally bound to me
I dont really care (for now) about this... but on the principle, I'm a bit fed up too by companies just crawling anything to train anymodel without any care about the datas, the people that produced them, and the consequences on people's life.
I look forward to the not-too-distant future where the EU protections grow stronger and places like HN have to respond by banning all European users lest they run afoul of a draconic legal framework.
It'll kill a lot of experiments (Mastodon immediately comes to mind; can't be pulling comments from other people's servers if those comments are attached to personal data like the commenter's username, right?).
Well, maybe you should think about the real responsabilities: Europe make laws in reaction to ABUSES. So dont blame Europe for the legislation, but the abusers that made this legislation mandatory to defend european citizen ;-)
Actually, Europe is so slow that a lot of experiments may take place. And there wont be any legislation if there no abuse...
It took a loooonnnng time for Europe to react to Facebook, Google & co abuse with users datas. Same for OpenAI using a awful lot of copyrighted material without giving anything back... So thank'em for Europe legislation :-)
I'm not up on the nuance of the GDPR, but has it been tested that your public profile name - which you set knowing it will be displayed publicly - is PII?
It's not PII (an American term) but it is personal data (a GDPR term).
Personal data is (broadly) considered to be data that could be used to track or tie your behavior online together into a profile. The UK's ICO calls out usernames specifically as
an example of such data. https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-re....
(For those of us who have been around on the Internet long enough to remember the era where people intentionally chose handles to remain pseudonymous and separate from their IRL personas, this seems counter-intuitive and a little preposterous, but the GDPR doesn't care what "netizens" think about privacy; it's a broad attempt to impose a "non-native" concept of privacy over the preexisting net culture).
Well, you choose a username in a specific context, even if it's public.
For example, you may agree to have your linkedIn profile name next to your HN username... maybe. But I'm not sure that you would agree to have your LinkedIn profile name next to your Tinder username.
And you sure don't want that to happen without your agreement and even without you knowing about it (but learning about it from a colleague for example).
That's why GDPR has some right to deletion or modification. And why some days, Europe may go after data brocker
(as a side note: not sure why my comments were downvoted. I didn't say that I would go after anybody - and surely not HN - I only said that uncontrolled use of any data without any anonymization and without consent might be the source of problems with regard to legislation decided BECAUSE too many shady business abused of it. You may not like it but then... well... downvote the abusers)
> This project points to what may be the biggest transformation yet: the opening up of Paris to its suburbs
Actually, that's only the OFFICIAL truth (or an architect fantasm), as much as saying that limiting the number and speed of cars on the Peripherique will make better living conditions for those living there...
Truth is: the Peripherique is largely more used by the suburbs (even to go from one to the other, east and north to west and south mostly) than by Parisians. The plans on the Peripherique will mostly impact badly these people on their day-to-day but... the Mayor Hidalgo think that
1) it will help her to be reelected by the "bo-bo" (bourgeois boheme - left upper class) living in Paris (that has been too costly for other population)
2) it will leave a "testament" of her Mayorship "in the stone" (a bit like Mitterand did with Palais du Louvres, Arche de la Defense and so...) and turn Paris into a tourist dream (like Venice) more than an economic and social capital
Studies show time and again that cars in Paris are only used by the richest people. I live in the suburbs and I frankly don't care if big SUVs are banned from Paris, in fact I encourage it. I go to work by RER and metro, like everyone else.
Let's be clear: this article is at best ill-informed or completly partial.
For examples:
> the city voted to triple parking charges for the biggest, most polluting cars
Mmmm... not really. Participation was 5,68% of people living in Paris (only! without any consideration for the suburb). And the Mayor said first that only "outsider" would be taxed... and changed her mind after the vote.
The Anne Hidalgo's plan seem to turn Paris into some kind of Disneyland Park. Would you spend your life in such a park?
Actually, even Parisian are less and less fond of this "greenification" of Paris because it causes more and more problems for them too (OK, they don't give a shit if it makes problem for suburbs people working in Paris... but now it starts to impact them too)
Companies are leaving Paris (too expensive) and people are thinking twice before accepting a job offer inside Paris because of transportation.
Actually, the situation is so bad that public transportation are asking since month to people and companies to work remotly during the Olympics because... well... it will be a real nightmare. And not everybody will have a bicyle
So, watch what you're wishing for. It's nice to be able to use bicyle from time to time when you want... but it's a bit different to have transportation problems because cars that absolutly must cross Paris (taxis, ambulance, people living there, truck that recharge shops...) are all stacked up in less and less street to develop cycling
> if it makes problem for suburbs people working in Paris
I live in suburb and cycle everyday to Paris inner center for work. I see every year more and more cyclist riding the new infrastructures, but the road are as bloated in their jam as they always have been.
> cars that absolutly must cross Paris
The point is precisely that most of the transit does not-so-absolutely-need to be by cars: many taxis and personal cars have more society downside than personal ups.
Yeah from what I recall RETE can be quite memory intensive in that it keeps the results of any intermediate rule computations that result from changing inputs in memory, in the hope that it will speed up answering subsequent queries (similar to how you might want to incrementally update a materialized view). Subsequent algorithms explored trading off memory consumption for query latency (amongst other differences).
* sqrt(-1) = a/b
* a^2 = -1 * b^2
Then either a^2 or b^2 are negative but a square can't be negative, so contradiction and sqrt(-1) is not rational.
The main "problem" with this proof (and the original with sqrt(2)) is "how to prove that a^2 >= 0" (or that "if a^2 is even, then a is even")
The first one is easy to prove:
* a^2 = sign(a)^2 * abs(a)^2
* abs(a) >= 0 for any a
* sign(a) = 1 or -1 for any a so sign(a)^2 = 1 (either 1*1 or -1*-1)
* so a^2 >= 0
The second one may be proved:
* Assume a is even, then a=2n, then a^2=4n^2=2*(2n^2) so a is even => a^2 is even
* Assume a is odd, then a=2n+1, then a^2=4n^2+4n+1=2*(2n^2+2n)+1, then a^2 is odd
* a is either even or odd
* So the only possibility for a^2 to be even is for a to be even
reply