heeplr @ heeplr @feddit.de

Posts

0

Comments

154

Joined

2 yr. ago

show the 20 pages of random words to your users, right?

any dev worth it's salt is going to check the agent string for GPTBot.

That said, it's a perfect receipe for getting companies to spoof browsers.

i'm out of the loop. what about him?

Windows

Exactly. Usually it's uncleaned clutter accumulating and filling swap. Linux, BSD, IRIX etc. are not affected by this.

In some cases it's hardware which would affect other OSs aswell.

Simply because software doesn't degrade performancewise. It gets better on a new machine.

Unless someone goes like "Sure, users probably never need this heavy feature but let's bundle it anyway because fuck them!"

We live in the real world. If you don't submit the government forms how they want you to, they shrug and fine the shit out of you.

Then you just don't know the law. There is no legislation that enforces Acrobat in any civilized country without alternative.

Quite the opposite: Send macroridden documents to any decently secure infrastructure and you get a big fat warning in the subject if it's not filtered entirely. Officials LOVE to do that extra call ensuring that this document is really from you before opening it and no phishing attempt...not.

Source: working >25 years in IT, >15 years for government IT

EDIT: we got some real Adobe Acrobat Fanboy here, eh? ;-)

That's why people came up with defensive programming and functional correctness.

Just seems to be difficult for the webdev industry. Seems easier to push fixes from time to time.

If you mean web development, you're right.

If you mean computer science, then I'd say that webdevs have little in common with the industry that came up with stuff like ADA or functional correctness.

It's a job machine. Maintenance is easier than improving code quality or adding features.

You’d rather not be aware that a vulnerability has been found since your last development ?

I'd rather develop with dependencies that don't have so many vulnerabilities.

nah. in my experience, even cheaper LED bulbs from discounters can nicely replace old bulbs.

It's true that what "el-cheapo product" once was done by simply reducing lifetime is currently done with looks.

You could also get ultra cheap crappy incendescant bulbs in the past.

yeah, i was referring to current tech. First LED or those mercury vapor bulbs were basically useless.

So you are saying

"The belief that climate change is unstoppable"

is the same thing as

"a temperature rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius is an existential threat to humanity"

Those are fundamentially different things and you just pulled some study you think is fitting to OPs article. But allright... I'm the one who's illiterate.

tHe lIgHt is sO mUcH bEtTeR!!!)

narrator voice: "but it was not"

Guy said “don’t be hyperbolic about the 1.5c goal because if people feel hopeless they are less likely to act.”

Then he's wrong. But it's more likely you misread the study since that's not the conclusion.

100.0 TiB(anana)

there will be a 'bastards up against the wall' moment for the ones responsible.

i can't see how that could prevent that. Quite the opposite, if half-assed efforts (without "state of emergency") lead to higher impact, people will get angrier than with lower impact, simply because more will have to struggle harder.

But first the environmental conditions must allow such activities to have the impacts they have.

Exactly. There might even be the same amount of arsonists/stupid people as in the 80s but it just burns better now. Incidents were no fire developed in the 80s can now spread to huge wildfires with a much higher chance.

Still the claim is true and probably has consequences for hikers, people who live in the woods, settlements near to forrests etc.

climate change unstoppable != scary life threatening consequences

Those are two entirely different narratives.

(And I didn't get past the paywall.)

because it’s making people feel hopeless and apathetic, which is actually slowing our efforts to change.

That's the thing I don't get. How to come to such a conclusion?

If you ever have been on a sinking ship, you know how suddenly even the worst enemies will cooperate willingly quite well in face of time pressure and a life threat. Some might even be willing to sacrifice themselves when in such a situation, even a few minutes gained can make a huge difference. But aswell if the situation seems hopeless.

It's totally atypical for most humans to just accept fate and relax in any life threatening situation. Humans tend to die fighting/ defending.