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.

Unfortunately there is significant overlap between plain-text-password-servers and servers that can’t be bothered to use antivirus. Also, the string may not work if it’s not at the start of the file. AV often doesn’t process the whole file for efficiency purposes.

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.

The best part is there’s already a default error handler! If the program dies, you know there was an error.

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.

Oh that was a nightmare. And you didn’t even know if the new ones you were getting were actually better.

I’m old enough to remember the hard drive shortages.

They literally don’t care if people buy them or not. Overwhelmingly profit is in the server and enterprise areas now.

Some people will still buy at those high prices and they are more than happy to stick with that small slice.

No wonder Nvidia is the world’s most valuable company.

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?

The expression is really good.

I’m not sure it matters if it’s legal or not anymore these days.

Still, they can legally demand any recordings from you if they reasonably can know that such recordings exist. Generally they will need a warrant or they may subpoena you for the evidence that they know you have. You can even be arrested for erasing your own footage as destruction of evidence.

Obligatory statement that I am not a lawyer and this isn’t legal advice.

Unless you’re self hosting your own cameras, just don’t. If you don’t control the data then it’s somebody else’s camera.

I’m deeply proud of Python for standing by its community and making the right decision.

Inflation. Pixels cost less back then.

The h265 hardware support is a lot less exciting than you might think. Most hardware that has support to encode it doesn’t even use the hardware encoders anyway because a software encoder produces a significantly better result. I would make sure you have CPU power to handle your transcoding, and I haven’t has any issues transcoding that resolution on my quite old Intel® Core™ i5-4590T CPU @ 2.00GHz.

A Raspi is probably not going to be enough for reliable video transcoding at high resolutions, but I haven’t tried it myself. You certainly have more upgrade path options with a mini-PC while still keeping a low power target.

I agree that distro is not very important if you’re running your services in Docker containers anyway. It’s mostly whatever you find comfortable. My personal recommendation is don’t get too creative unless you enjoy setting up servers. I tend to be conservative in my server OSs.