Probably the most equivalent existing open source thing out there is ENet, which doesn't do encryption or detailed stats. If you've signed the steam NDA (which is free of charge iirc) you can check out the existing docs for the closed source version, which has extra features on top of this.
The concern here is revenge-spam: someone takes your email and submits it to every mailchimp default form they can find automatically, and then your inbox is flooded with ostensibly legitimate email that you have to manually unsubscribe from, for each individual list.
I understand the concern on an individual level as expressed in the article, but doubt "revenge spam" even moves the needle with mail providers' decisions on MailChimp mails get through or not, which is the primary concern of people worrying about its deliverability.
notably: it's not the GOP the organization that initial funded the oppo, but a private news org with conservative leanings. and the FBI did not fund the dossier, but were provided it during its creation. (side note: who cares)
When it comes to corroboration: I would think the special investigation is good enough evidence that the claims of Russian cooperation are being taken seriously, no? Significant is a weasel word but there is actual smoke here.
>I would think the special investigation is good enough evidence that the claims of Russian cooperation are being taken seriously, no?
How would you tell the claims being taken seriously from the investigators trying to use the legal system to get dirt on Donald Trump?
At this point, the investigation has been ongoing for around 10 months, and currently they've only found anything on Paul Manafort, who was Trump's campaign manager for a few months.
The charges against Manafort are essentially failing to disclose lobbying for foreign agents, tax evasion, and money laundering [0]. The lobbying was done while Manafort was working for the Podesta Group, which was founded by Hillary Clinton's campaign manager [1].
On a side note, I find it interesting how Wikipedia doesn't have any information on Manafort's involvement with the Podesta Group.
I would say it's mostly a matter of use: In C you deal with void* or typecasts all the time, whereas in higher level languages it's much less common, either because the type system is smarter, or the constraints that it does have are more strictly enforced. For example: you can happily compare a char* and an int in C, but other languages like python might error at the thought.
C is incredibly permissive with regard to its types which are themselves very anemic. With the exception of the numeric primitives, C really only has a single type, the pointer, everything else is just syntactic sugar for various forms of pointer arithmetic. For instance arrays in C are just a shortcut for some pointer plus an offset multiplied by a constant determined at compile time based on what you've claimed is the underlying struct or primitive of the array. Importantly C is perfectly happy to take any random pointer into arbitrary memory and allow you to map any set of offsets into it. It's worth looking at for instance Rust that at least in theory allows the same thing to be done, but only by explicitly opting out of static checks via unsafe declarations. In normal safe code Rust will statically verify that a given reference (pointer more or less) is in fact referring to the type you're code is expecting it to, rather than the C approach of simply assuming the program is correct. Looked at another way, as far as the C compiler is concerned nearly everything is a pointer, and one kind of pointer is entirely exchangeable with another kind of pointer (with at most a cast being required, but probably not even that if it's the entirely too common case of being a void pointer). This is in contrast to nearly every other statically typed language that will either at compile or runtime verify that any given reference is the appropriate type before dereferencing it. C++ nominally at least has a more powerful type system, but since it was designed (in theory at least) as a superset of C, C's permissivity blows a giant gaping hole in its type system.
/t/tmp.1q8r9dZAtX > cat test.c
int main() {
char *test = "test";
int i = 10;
return test == i;
}
/t/tmp.1q8r9dZAtX > cc test.c
test.c: In function ‘main’:
test.c:4:14: warning: comparison between pointer and integer
return test == i;
^~
If your intent is to improve the world, and not just act superior, I don't see what this accomplishes. Hear dissent without action long enough and it becomes noise.
it can still be an issue with memory even if it isn't as blatant as "out of memory".
The easy example being a datastructure growing over time and getting slower to manipulate and query. This is a problem where being cavalier with the amount of memory you allocate and use will hurt you, even if you've got lots of memory to spare.
I absolutely agree that our current situation needs to be improved, but looking at the history of media leads me to believe that by progressing past the centralized and regulated system of TV and radio we've left a local maximum when it comes to "civility". Older forms of "ugly" news, like the press of the french revolution or turn-of-the-century america, didn't get fixed over time, but by the law "catching up", either through oppression or the increase of regulation causing regulatory capture. Of course, the idea of recentralizing speech is more or less unacceptable: what would that even mean when the problem is not a small group of newsmakers, but literally everybody? I don't see any other solutions in our long past, though.
yes and no?
Unlike a traditional daemon, this isn't a system service that always runs in the background.
The IDE (in this case atom) spins up the process and shuts it down when necessary, and then both sides communicate to each other using an implementation-defined IPC mechanism.
So it's a server more in the sense that the IDE requests info as a client, and then the server provides it (pull, not push).
