vore

Asking OP how many times their house got destroyed for your personal curiosity is, I would think, rather tactless.

Only if they touch the same data. If they are touching disjoint sets of data then there is no overhead to be paid by non-SERIALIZABLE transactions.

How do you know how much memory you need to allocate when you need to do the work in the first place to determine it? Maybe if snprintf was resumable by supplying a larger buffer while it was doing its work, but this seems like a lot of complexity.

If you have PreCheck, this app has literally nothing to do whether or not the TSA will give you a pat down or not. And I don't know about you, but TSA is pretty careful about not "groping your junk" and will always be clear what they intend to do and use the back of their hands specifically to avoid any kind of impropriety. Cut down on the hyperbole about "sexual abuse" because you're trivializing what sexual abuse actually is.

It absolutely is speculation if you haven't done the legwork and just want to throw out quick and easy takes like this.

I don't see anything about using an X.509 certificate for logging in, just for a client authenticating the remote server. And, even then, TLS has support for mutual authentication so someone with a cheap DigiCert certificate logging into your server is not really a problem if you could configure mTLS on the server side to accept only certificates in a certain chain.

Speculating like this with no evidence just to peacock to everyone that you're privacy conscious is not actually helpful for anyone.

If LLMs could hallucinate Zuck executing someone they would be infinitely funnier.

If you're not familiar with Steve Yegge, this is his classic rant style. It might not be your cup of tea, but it's definitely more substantial than "AI generated blogspam", and I think you should point out where exactly you think the hallucinations are for everyone if you think it is.

I think unfortunately in almost all cases the spirit of the law is more important than the word of the law, and most courts frown upon this kind of chicanery. I think this encourages her to "well, actually" people more, which nobody likes being on the receiving end of :-)

Do you actually want them to store everywhere you've ever been on their servers because they would be using their storage instead? Because I don't, and I don't care to guess what the actual reason might be, because I'm just glad they don't want to do it anymore because it's better for everyone – removing remote storage removes a whole host of privacy issues.

Store location history remotely: this is just a scheme to invade privacy and hoover up user data.

Store location history locally: this is just a scheme to cut down on storage costs.

There's no winning here, is there? Personally, I'm a fan of Google never giving the option to store location history remotely and this is a step in the right direction.

You can always twist anything into enough knots to construe it as "blatant lies and propaganda" – clearly you've already made up your mind – so this is not an exercise worth doing for anyone.

I think you should spell out your implication.