The difference is that it is bad for business reputation when some of the largest companies on planet are regularly leaking data through exploits. Testing will become an economic requirement over time.
> The behavior is undefined if the calls to functions in this library introduce a file system race, that is, when multiple threads, processes, or computers interleave access and modification to the same object in a file system.
Line 78 checks that the path isn't a symlink (time-of-check). Then line 97 calls openFdAt which on line 174 opens the path by name, without NOFOLLOW (time-of-use).
If you think "→" misrepresents the meaning of "->", then certainly "->" also misrepresents the meaning of a semantic arrow "→". The set of symbols in 7-bit ASCII is somewhat arbitrary after all.
Let's say "→" misrepresents the meaning of "->" even as much as 0.1% of the time. Would you rather your risk of error be 99.9%, or 0.1%?
I'm sick of anti-ligature people telling everyone else not to enjoy their fonts, on every single post about a font. Ligatures have caught on for a reason.
If you say it is a "terrible idea" that kind of implies that anyone who has the idea to add them to their font or use a font that supports it has made a terrible choice. At least, that's how I interpret it.
The only thing that is annoying with -> as two characters is the misalignment of the horizontal center. If the ligature had always centered the - to the middle of the >, I’m not sure so many people would be pushing towards having a single arrow.
Ligatures caught on because users like 'clean' designs where 'clean' means 'the removal of affordances which are not needed by frequent users but are useful to new users'. Your example doesn't make any sense because while the dash arrow attempts to mimic an actual arrow it's not ambiguous that it's two characters and will be understood by a compiler as such. A reading of source code either on a blog or shoulder surfing with this font does have that ambiguity, which is the problem.
I don't think "→" necessarily misrepresents the meaning of "->" (though see the objections throughout the thread re: differing ways that languages notate "not equal to.")
The point is that programming isn't just an exercise in semantics. But it is deterministic symbolically.
Screenshots are a suboptimal way to share code in general, and should be avoided. If you are trying to copy code from a screenshot something has gone horribly wrong in your process. If you are having trouble reading ligatures, that may be a learning curve issue you can adapt to with more use. (Arguably, most ligatures should be obvious with enough familiarity with the programming language without needing to look them up or learn them.)
Most other ways of code sharing you just copy and paste into a non-ligature font if you need to.
Aside: "ASCII" symbols are neither universally shaped or styled either. The easiest and obvious example to mind is the plain 0, dotted 0, slashed 0 choice and confusion with nearby symbols such as O and o and θ (Theta, not far away in "Extended ASCII"). Similarly all the variations of lower-case L (versus 1 and i). Those choices vary considerably between fonts and are another huge reason some people prefer certain monospace fonts over others and the debate over "best" will likely be an ever ongoing one. You may not think these issues compare to ligature use, but it's exactly the same sort of style debates.
Well their observation is completely wrong. Timing is the most important factor which matters. I have seen thousands of extremely good non-political, neutral, tech related articles not getting a single upvote if it is submitted at times most of US/Western Europe is sleeping.
I initially named the post "Mercurial being rewritten in Rust" and that's how it made it to the front page, if I recall correctly, close to the first spot, even.
As soon as mods renamed it, it dropped like a rock.
I predict we start seeing "Login with 1Password" buttons on random websites next to the google and facebook buttons. I also predict it never catches on.
Hmmm.... I read the headline here and was a little perturbed. WTF does a password manager need THAT much money for.
However, after reading your comment, I hope this is the direction they go. I actually really like the future where I can have instant accounts attached to a more anonymous backend than my social media. I'm sick of things as mundane as my local gym asking for access to my fucking friends list.
Sign-up hurdles are a real thing too. I recently read that it was a major factor to Microsoft's video gaming stream service never taking off.
Based on https://www.future.1password.com/ I'm guessing it will be closer to LastPass's auto-login. It still uses the existing username/password form, but autofills and submits for you.
So a 1- or 0-click login once you hit the login form, as opposed to the current 3-click system (see login list, click to fill, click to submit). And looks like it also might handle the 2fa portion (which essentially makes it 1fa).
I'm guessing this isn't what you meant, but a password manager that integrates with the Credential Management API[1] would be amazing. Would simplify password management a lot if it got widespread adoption, and provide an easier upgrade path to strong public-key authentication using WebAuthn.
That's certainly an eyecatching idea! I'd hate to be engineer in charge of that idea, though... how would you even begin to drive webmaster adoption? Even with the leverage of their massive userbases, Google/Facebook logins are far from ubiquitous.
> how would you even begin to drive webmaster adoption?
"If your users use 1password, they won't keep forgetting their passwords (causing frustration and support burden) and won't use weak passwords that result in account takeovers (support and eng burden). Plus, you and your users won't be beholden to the whims of fb or Google".
I know that PioSolver is not a "poker AI" per se, but the article seems to say it can tell you what to do based on the table situation. Has anyone tried pitting pro players against PioSolver?
PioSolver requires putting in the hand range of the opponent, so the quality of PioSolver's solution is largely down to how accurate the guess at that hand range is. But if a pro knows he is playing against PioSolver configured with a certain hand range he can just change his strategy to adapt. In theory though if PioSolver knows the correct hand range then it shouldn't be possible to any better than tie given enough hands.
