flufluflufluffy

Yeah but it fails the instant you want to do something audio/visual and actually see/hear anything. Good example right on the OPs site, smoothing a Mandelbrot fractal and working on a set of color palettes.

The article is a case report. They’re almost always N=1. They’re just meant to contribute to the sum total of general knowledge of practicing medicine.

I’m gonna go eat my banana which was produced by an invisible matter producer that doesn’t require power, and think about what I could be thinking about.

even better you can do “php -v”

When we humans have realized we created a system too incoherent, at some point we just create a new one, porting all or some of the data/functionality. But also, we are already presented with problems that all of the current compute on the planet cannot solve. If a software system becomes one of those problems, I'm not that bothered, because it isn't as pressing as real-world one. I don't know, I see it as an argument against the singularity, but I'm not nearly afraid of it as the author seems to be.

Where do they recommend banning open models? I only see a recommendation to harden our systems to defend against the potential replicators.

“Using a VPS from a hosting provider”

What reality are we in?! The name of the thing literally contradicts the term. You are using a HOSTING PROVIDER. Somebody other than yourself is providing the hosting!

It is very simple actually. The entity providing the host environment is the one doing the hosting. If I am hosting a VPS on my own hardware, I am providing the host environment, and it is called self-hosting. If a company is hosting a VPS from a data center (or wherever), they are providing the host environment, and it is not called self-hosting.

Might be sarcasm in this case, regarding how certain molecules might be cherry-pick-regulated vs others. Although it’s an apples-to-oranges comparison to equate drowning with “overexposure” to water.

This might sound kinda crazy, but I define “self-hosted” as something that I host myself.

Yes! My friend and I used to say that all the time

I meant sanitary in a general sense. Maybe a better word would be “unexpected.” You want to minimize the possibility of receiving unexpected input. Though not perfect, the maxlength attribute is one way of getting there.

For example, a password value of a million characters, to me, would be unsanitary, or unexpected. Of course it’s possible somebody might want to use that as their password, but more likely it’s an attempt at a buffer overflow. I’m not saying there is a specific number where it changes from sanitary to unsanitary, but choosing some reasonable value to limit the length at would be a good idea. Even outside of security, from a purely utilitarian perspective, it would make sense to have some limit on the length of any data you’re storing/processing.

Re: security, yes, there should be a reasonable minimum length as well.

It’s the literal piece of paper that was transported by the pigeon and it’s signed by the author of RFC 1149. A little piece of Internet history ephemera.

> This is one example why we shouldn't use the maxlength attribute on the password field.

While I acknowledge your issue is incredibly frustrating, it is still good practice to use the maxlength attribute. Yes, it can be bypassed. Yes, you should still check the length on the backend. But it’s one more layer of ensuring sanitary input. Obviously, companies should do a better job of communicating the maximum password length to the user, properly setting the attributes on all inputs, AND if they do enforce a max length, having it be large enough that it ensures a secure password, but we shouldn’t just abandon using the HTML attribute altogether.

I half-consciously avoided touching the fingerprint (on mobile, obvy) lol. I did think it was annoying