I remember finding online guides for the first time back in the days of dial up. It was incredible. So many games I had places where I was stuck and you just accepted that you have to figure it out or you just don’t continue the game.

Why is it so often a PDF?

Yup. Noticed it was wrong instantly because I had to study this work way back in high school.

This is why we block ads.

Considering how the open source community is being inundated with low-quality bug reports filed using AI, I don’t have much faith in the tech reviewing code, let alone writing it correctly.

Could it be a useful aid? Sure, but 70% of your reviewing is a pie-in-the-sky pipe dream. AI just isn’t ready for this level of responsibility in any organization.

Wow! Getting abused through vendor lock in does not make me want to buy a new PlayStation if this is true.

I think the idea is that it’s easier to manage your resources in C++ if you write your code using RAII. Linux is mainly C, not C++, which makes resource management a little bit more manual.

Rust however categorically tries to stop these problems from happening in an even stronger way. You can still write bad code in any language, but it’s supposed to be a lot more difficult to get memory corruption.

It is effective at discouraging bots when looking at real world services today, but indeed you have found the primary downside. It does impose costs on users even if the costs are disproportionately placed on bots.

Not directly, but as other comment has mentioned, it reduces the overall security posture because it could be combined with other flaws known and unknown.

You need to be able to run code on the system that has the bug. The bug is in the netfilter component, in how it’s managed on that system, not in the actual traffic flows.

Yes, that’s right. You cannot have a UAF situation unless you’re using unsafe “escape hatch” tools.

I think the idea is to have a small government of one dictator who tells everyone else what to do.

It saves no energy. In fact, it costs more energy at first, but the hope is that bots will turn their attention to something that isn’t so expensive as hitting your servers. The main goal is to get your service online so that you’re not burning all your own resources on fake users.

Your understanding is consistent with mine. It spends a small amount of effort (per user) that makes scaling too expensive (per bot-farm-entity). It also uses an adjustable difficulty that can vary depending on how sus a request appears to be.

It’s not a perfect solution by any means. It doesn’t protect user data. It doesn’t do anything to help with the energy problem. It merely makes it possible for someone to run their server without getting taken offline by automated systems.

It works by asking your system for a small computation before handling the request. It’s not too intrusive for normal users, but it drives up the costs for bot farms.

Can the universe not also approximate? Why must it be an exact result whenever a rule is applied?

I take issue with completeness in a very similar way. For example, imagine for some reason that in the simulation it’s impossible to think about penguins. Let’s say that penguins are so logically incomprehensible that we cannot implement this.

The implementation of the simulation could simply trap any attempt to think about penguins and replace it with something else. We would be none the wiser. The simulation still works even if there are states that we can’t get to or are undefined.

It could be that reality itself isn’t entirely complete and defined everywhere. Who’s to say this isn’t one big dream and that the sky isn’t there if we all stopped looking?

There is no escape from Plato‘s cave.

Dr. Faizal says the same limitation applies to physics. “We have demonstrated that it is impossible to describe all aspects of physical reality using a computational theory of quantum gravity,” he explains.

“Therefore, no physically complete and consistent theory of everything can be derived from computation alone.”

Your argument is bad and you should feel bad.

Impossible to describe does not mean that it’s not possible to simulate, and impossible is an incredibly strong criterion that sounds quite inaccurate to me. We simulate weather systems all the time, even though the systems are fundamentally chaotic and it’s impossible to forecast accurately. We don’t even know that gravity is quantum, so that’s quite a weird starting point but we’ll ignore that for a second. What is this argument?

This seems like a huge leap to conclude that just because some aspects of our understanding seem like we wouldn’t be able to fully describe them somehow means that the universe can’t be simulated.

“Drawing on mathematical theorems related to incompleteness and indefinability, we demonstrate that a fully consistent and complete description of reality cannot be achieved through computation alone,” says Dr. Faizal.

Who’s to say that reality is completely defined? Perhaps there are aspects to what we consider the real universe that are uncertain. Isn’t that foundational to quantum mechanics?

That looks great, Satan! Can you hold the maggots though?