"So you put me to sleep? Fuck that, I hibernated instead."
In Windows 10 there's "so you want me to stay asleep/hibernated? Fuck that, I have important things to do in the middle of the night".
"So you put me to sleep? Fuck that, I hibernated instead."
In Windows 10 there's "so you want me to stay asleep/hibernated? Fuck that, I have important things to do in the middle of the night".
Because OSX is better left observed from distance and not used.
@Lorne_Kates said:
What the shaqfu is that?
Welcome to the AAA game industry, an unsustainable mess of terrible ideas driven by bad management. It's not the first, it won't be the last, at least until that segment finally implodes.
@dkf said:
It could be worse. He could be rebooting that machine into a different OS in order to use some ancient nasty WinPrinter, and then booting back into Linux to run GitLab.
GitLab runs on the printer.
A curious thing appeared in my feed: it would seem Google is developing a new authentication method. It's supposed to "kill passwords". If that sounds suspiciously like "kill any semblance of security" to you, you'd be incredibly right!
So it's an API that decides whether you really are who you say you are, based on biometrics. But worry not, banks will require much higher trust score than games! And apparently some people want this to replace 2FA. You can see a handy chart from last year's conference showing estimated entropy of all this bullshit: whole 20 bits.
It "may prove to be ten-fold more secure than just a fingerprint sensor", because you know your security system is great when your selling point is being better than 4-digit PINs or fingerprints. Because people still don't understand that biometrics are usernames, not passwords.
This is probably the most brain-dead idea I've ever heard. And the worst thing is, there doesn't seem to be any way to disable this, so your account may be compromised even if you don't want to use it, because you know that neglecting the security of one of the most critical accounts is fairly important. And because this is Google project and it's an API and people are dumb, this is bound to be used elsewhere too (articles already mentioned that banks want to trial it, because of course, if there is anyone worse at security than Google it would be banks).
There's been reports of users being able to login to their accounts on brand new devices with silly questions like "what city do you login from the most". To be honest I don't really care whether they're true or not. This whole thing has literally no redeeming qualities whatsoever. This is what centralisation brings: morons in charge.
I'd say that this ruins privacy, too, but that ship has sailed a long time ago.
@Lorne_Kates said:
Upgrade page links to https://admin/upgrade
Where we're going, we won't need domains.
Or make ads that aren't multi-megabyte videos. You can create pretty effective ads with a couple KB of text.
And what's next, ads that aren't malware? Ridiculous.
Also, apparently people identify with dried fruit?
It's Tumblr. I'd be more surprised if they didn't.
Don't you think silently upgrading to a whole new OS with a whole new UI is the height of shitty UI?
My laptop (fucking VAIO) can't be upgraded from Win7, because the GPU is special and AMD drivers don't work with it, and Sony didn't bother updating theirs for Win8+. Will that stop the update? WHO KNOWS.
@Adynathos said in .NET Core angst:
I mean to parse the code and replace it with modern equivalents, maybe make a few subclasses on new objects which emulate the old API, while using the new core.
This is only possible with Py2 applications written with all the Py3 semantics in mind. You can't do it with just any old code. There's been a tool to make all the superficial changes automatically from the very start.
@dkf said in Project Abacus, a.k.a. Google is terrible at security:
Adding to the base set? Not a problem
Might be if it lets you skip the password auth every time. I don't have any Android devices to test it out, but I've looked around account settings and don't see a way to allow or disallow it. I hope it's because I'm using GApps and they're not rolling out this nonsense there, but I bet even if there is a way to disable it, it'll be enabled by default for everyone. For ~convenience~.
A curious thing appeared in my feed: it would seem Google is developing a new authentication method. It's supposed to "kill passwords". If that sounds suspiciously like "kill any semblance of security" to you, you'd be incredibly right!
So it's an API that decides whether you really are who you say you are, based on biometrics. But worry not, banks will require much higher trust score than games! And apparently some people want this to replace 2FA. You can see a handy chart from last year's conference showing estimated entropy of all this bullshit: whole 20 bits.
It "may prove to be ten-fold more secure than just a fingerprint sensor", because you know your security system is great when your selling point is being better than 4-digit PINs or fingerprints. Because people still don't understand that biometrics are usernames, not passwords.
This is probably the most brain-dead idea I've ever heard. And the worst thing is, there doesn't seem to be any way to disable this, so your account may be compromised even if you don't want to use it, because you know that neglecting the security of one of the most critical accounts is fairly important. And because this is Google project and it's an API and people are dumb, this is bound to be used elsewhere too (articles already mentioned that banks want to trial it, because of course, if there is anyone worse at security than Google it would be banks).
There's been reports of users being able to login to their accounts on brand new devices with silly questions like "what city do you login from the most". To be honest I don't really care whether they're true or not. This whole thing has literally no redeeming qualities whatsoever. This is what centralisation brings: morons in charge.
I'd say that this ruins privacy, too, but that ship has sailed a long time ago.
@flabdablet said in Need to call a function? Use reflection!:
Is getattr() an actual function call in Python
Yes. It's implemented in the VM, though, so the difference is typically negligible. PyPy might be able to optimise it out in a case like this one, but CPython doesn't have a JIT and only does some rudimentary peephole optimisations on the bytecode. It doesn't really matter anyway.
@flabdablet said in Need to call a function? Use reflection!:
Also, is there any difference in Python between calling a method via its containing object and calling it via a function reference?
No, object.method
returns a bound callable. In general, dis
module is your friend if you want to find out things like that: https://ideone.com/VkmpcC
It's mostly ridiculous micro-optimisation territory though and not really worth keeping in mind.
Does Python have anything like this and .call() and .apply() in Javascript?
No, Python doesn't do dynamic scoping at all. Every callable object has __call__
that actually implements the function call operator, but you never use it directly (fn()
and fn.__call__()
are exactly equivalent). You can unpack lists and dicts into positional/keyword arguments using special syntax: args = [1, 2, 3]; kwargs = { 'x': 1, 'y': 2 }; f(*args, **kwargs)
, so there is no need for apply
either.
@Dragnslcr said in Need to call a function? Use reflection!:
I don't know if there might be some very small performance penalty for doing the variable lookup.
Attribute loads (and global loads) are slightly slower than local loads. You might see generated code that preloads attributes/globals into locals, but you won't pass any code review if you do it in code intended for humans.
@AyGeePlus said in Need to call a function? Use reflection!:
Why read it in one kb at a time?
Because then you only need to keep a scratch buffer and MD5 state (both of which have constant size) in memory, instead of the entire file. Reading file in full is rarely a thing you want to do (and only for small files), especially for hashing where it's both a waste of time and space.
@Dragnslcr said in Need to call a function? Use reflection!:
For those not familiar with it, getattr(hashlib, 'md5')() is the same as hashlib.md5()
They might have confused using getattr
with using hashlib.new
, which takes any an algorithm name and is used to grab ones that aren't exposed as top-level hashlib
functions (like RIPEMD and stuff). Still wrong thing to do for MD5, though.
@dkf Feature request: change copy to "the [x] server is up to no good".
@Arantor said:
And $deity forbid it becomes optional to poll lest the great unwashed start complaining that "my hosting provider says it takes too much load" which is the software's fault, never the fault of the person running on $2.99 GoDaddy shared hosting with free software.
I remember that stupid rant on how Discourse dares to require Postgres extensions that aren't loaded by default. Ugh. Some people should just not touch these things.
@dkf said:
It could be worse. He could be rebooting that machine into a different OS in order to use some ancient nasty WinPrinter, and then booting back into Linux to run GitLab.
GitLab runs on the printer.
@Onyx said:
Feature request: add a "Stop helping!" checkbox to
"Helpful" software inevitably does everything wrong and can't be convinced to do it right.
@Yamikuronue said:
101 excels
I can barely handle one!
Operator-as-nameable-function or naming one-liners in general is not a terrible idea, as it can make some code using higher-order functions easier to read. Especially that long form lambdas in JS get really really noisy, and the short form is a relatively recent invention.
It is fairly silly to make a module per function, though. Not sure why that would be a selling point.