Knusper

Maybe they should have gotten started on that before they refreshed their image from 20 years ago...

Apparently, "Theorems for free!" is a paper that talks about an extensive ability to reason about parts of programs, if you follow some rather basic rules.

However, lots of popular programming languages throw this ability out the window, because they do not want to enforce those basic rules.
Most languages, for example, allow for rather uncontrolled side effects and to be able to reason as a programmer, you have to make the assumption that no one else abused side effects.

The instanceof is rather referring to dynamic typing, though, as e.g. employed by Python and JS, which makes it difficult to make any assumptions at all.

So, in statically typed languages, when you're implementing a function, you can declare that a given parameter is a number or a string etc. and the compiler will enforce that for you. In dynamically typed languages, you have to assume that anyone calling your function is using it correctly, which is a difficult assumption to make after a refactoring in a larger codebase.

All in all, such different levels of rigorosity can be fine, but the larger your codebase grows, the more you do want such rules to be enforced, so you can just ignore the rest of the codebase.

What are you even talking about? Archives have been so much easier to use on Linux for many years, because that headline was built-in.

Yeah, problem is that I'm not aware of anyone who actually writes octal numbers as "OCT123" nor decimal numbers as "DEC123". It's basically a made-up syntax, supposed to look plausible for both date notation and number system notation. It's part of the joke, which LLMs won't understand.

rfc3339's

I mean, I certainly don't want to argue against 2FA, but some accounts are just ...disposable, you know?

Like, if someone hacks into this account, obviously not great, but I'll talk to the admins to get it suspended/deleted and then I'll make a new one. It's mostly just a minor inconvenience...

I agree that lots of software calls itself e2ee, despite the ends being untrustworthy and one can definitely argue that therefore the word itself should not imply trustworthy.

But well, in this particular context, folks were using the 'trustworthy' definition...

It is definitely possible, yeah. Tailscale and similar don't do magic either.

I'm not sure on the specifics, though. I think, you want a TURN server or a STUN server.

It kind of depends on your definition of "end-to-end". Normally, what people mean is from one communication partner (i.e. human) to the other. If you use a software to do the encrypting and decrypting, it should be open-source and verifiable. The WhatsApp client is not that. It is an attack vector and it takes in your message in unencrypted form.

...and might be losing money from each of those: https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-reportedly-is-losing-lots-of-money-per-user-on-github-copilot/

Possible, yeah. Falkon was previously an independent project (QupZilla). I don't know how much they've intermingled with the other KDE devs yet, but that's certainly no insurmountable problem either.

Oh, I rather doubt it.

It is built on top of Qt, so I assume, theoretically, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to do the port, but you need someone who regularly tests+fixes it under macOS. And well, it's a non-commercial project, so you need someone who volunteers to do that...