Morphit

When in doubt - C4!

Plus it did land on the barge. Most of the debris should be there, though the remaining fuel would have mainly gone overboard. Probably the flight termination explosives also.

I don’t think that’s what ‘market share’ is trying to represent, but without any context - yeah. You can lump in android phones and set-top boxes and signage and industrial controllers while you’re at it.

Is OP adding the Android share to Linux? That would certainly do it.

• Android (all platforms): 45.19%

Only makes sense if you know their definition of ‘Linux’ though.

I think what you want is in Firefox nightly right now: https://blog.nightly.mozilla.org/2024/08/07/firefox-sidebar-and-vertical-tabs-try-them-out-in-nightly-firefox-labs-131/

That expands and compacts based on the sidebar state and can be flipped to the right side of the window in the ‘customise sidebar’ settings.

1xx: hold on
2xx: here you go
3xx: go away
4xx: you fucked up
5xx: I fucked up
6xx: Google fucked up

A balance has to be struck. The alternative isn’t not getting anything better, it’s being sure the benefits are worth the costs. The comment was “Why is [adding another decoder] a negative?” There is a cost to it, and while most people don’t think about this stuff, someone does.

The floppy code was destined to be removed from Linux because no one wanted to maintain it and it had such a small user base. Fortunately I think some people stepped up to look after it but that could have made preserving old software significantly harder.

If image formats get abandoned, browsers are going to face hard decisions as to whether to drop support. There has to be some push-back to over-proliferation of formats or we could be in a worse position than now, where there are only two or three viable browser alternatives that can keep up with the churn of web technologies.

I mean, the comic is even in the OP. The whole point is that AVIF is already out there, like it or not. I’m not happy about Google setting the standards but that has to be supported. Does JPEGXL cross the line where it’s really worth adding in addition to AVIF? It’s easy to yes when you’re not the one supporting it.

https://xkcd.com/927/

Adding more decoders means more overheads in code size, projects dependencies, maintanance, developer bandwidth and higher potential for security vulnerabilities.

Will you be able to handle all these panels as it becomes economically reasonable for people to replace them?

You wouldn’t print a mouse.

Back in my day, mice had balls.

I don’t think it’s ‘user error’ exactly. Maybe when this has occurred, something in the frunk has obstructed the closing of the hood so it almost latched, but the deformed switch is detecting it as closed. I think they might be adjusting the switch sensitivity in software (maybe it uses a Hall effect sensor and a magnet?) so that this almost-closed condition will be reported as just being open.

The only thing I can think of is if the sensor is a hall effect sensor that detects something (the switch?) being depressed by the hood. The sensitivity of the hall effect sensor might be tuneable. They may be able to reduce the sensitivity so it still detects a properly closed hood, but reports an improperly closed hood as open.

It’s annoying that the report just says it’s fixed in software without explaining how.

I guess the funny thing is that each Git commit is internally just a file. Branches and tags are just links to specific commit files and of course commits link to their parents. If a branch gets deleted or jumped back to a previous commit, the orphaned commits are still left in the filesystem. Various Git actions can trigger a garbage collection, but unless you generate huge diffs, they usually stick around for a really long time. Determining if a commit is orphaned is work that Git usually doesn’t bother doing. There’s also a reflog that can let you recover lost commits if you make a mistake.

I think Github keeps all the commits of forks in a single pool. So if someone commits a secret to one fork, that commit could be looked up in any of them, even if the one that was committed to was private/is deleted/no references exist to the commit.

The big issue is discovery. If no-one has pulled the leaky commit onto a fork, then the only way to access it is to guess the commit hash. Github makes this easier for you:

What’s more, Ayrey explained, you don’t even need the full identifying hash to access the commit. “If you know the first four characters of the identifier, GitHub will almost auto-complete the rest of the identifier for you,” he said, noting that with just sixty-five thousand possible combinations for those characters, that’s a small enough number to test all the possibilities.

I think all GitHub should do is prune orphaned commits from the auto-suggestion list. If someone grabbed the complete commit ID then they probably grabbed the content already anyway.

Ah - Actually reading the article reveals why this is actually an issue:

What’s more, Ayrey explained, you don’t even need the full identifying hash to access the commit. “If you know the first four characters of the identifier, GitHub will almost auto-complete the rest of the identifier for you,” he said, noting that with just sixty-five thousand possible combinations for those characters, that’s a small enough number to test all the possibilities.

So enumerating all the orphan commits wouldn’t be that hard.

In any case if a secret has been publicly disclosed, you should always assume it’s still out there. For sure, rotate your keys.

Well, sort of. GitHub certainly could refuse to render orphan commits. They pop up a banner saying so but I don’t see why they should show the commit at all. They could still keep the data until it’s garbage collected since a user might re-upload the commit in a new branch.

This seems like a non-issue though since someone who hasn’t already seen the disclosed information would need to somehow determine the hash of the deleted commit.

What do you mean? The shadow mask ensures the gun for each colour can only hit the phosphors of that colour. How would a lower resolution change that?