Hi!
My previous/alt account is yetAnotherUser@feddit.de which will be abandoned soon.
threatening screenshot
This feels approximately as threatening as the Navy Seals copypasta but that’s just me. If you’re a long-elusive threat actor, then no bottom-tier secret police “agent” with a handler will be aware of your identity and “threaten” you.
Fucking category theorists thinking they’re doing “math” when it’s clearly cocaine.
The only question is: What is a caine?
wtf don’t dox me
This was like an IRL “Spot the differences” puzzle (at least with regards to body position). I only found two - the arms are different.
I don’t know enough about Windows app development to answer this. Maybe it replaces the old .exe and the now replaced .exe is just continuing to run from RAM? Maybe there is some restarter.exe program in the same folder that does all the work. In any case, this depends far too much on the Windows update process and how to launch applications.
I just know when I used Windows applications in the past, they were able to restart themselves after updating somehow.
I meant the old .exe would check the signatures before initializing the official Windows way to update. Effectively have this run whenever you start the application:
main() {
if (update_available()) {
exe_path = download_update()
if (signature(exe_path) == SIGNATURE) {
install_update(exe_path)
restart()
} else {
put_up_a_warning_or_something()
delete(exe_path)
}
}
# Rest of the application
# ...
}
The only thing I have no idea how to implement would be the install_update(path) function. But surely this is one way to install updates without signatures recognized by Microsoft, right?
And if for some reason you aren’t allowed to sign the .exe because this breaks something, then place an unsigned .exe in a signed zip folder.
Yes, but from what I understand this refers to the automatic update functionality and not Microsoft’s own .exe signature verification thing.
Couldn’t you do it like this:
That should work, shouldn’t it?
It’s astounding this wasn’t done years sooner to be honest. I mean, signing software with keys is not something invented recently. Not doing so is akin to storing passwords in plain text.
GOTTEM
Right, I didn’t consider this.
But I don’t think a protogen has very high voltages though. Humans produce around 100 W of heat at rest so a protogen cannot produce much more without being significantly hotter. And since P = U * I there’s just so much voltage there can be to actually reach the drowning guy through all that water AND have sufficient current to cause damage.
I feel like it’s probably safe.
I don’t think so? Even if the water were to short and kill the proto, I don’t see why the electricity would travel all the way to the drowning guy unless he’d be touching the proto. People are pretty bad conductors with high resistance and electricity tends to go for the best way to ground.
Though I’d imagine for very high voltages the electricity may discover your ion-rich blood is a decent enough conductor to make up for the resistance of your skin. Or you may have a cut somewhere bypassing your skin entirely.
As a non-native speaker, wouldn’t “at the very right” be the more natural variant? I don’t recall hearing anyone use “far [direction]” for describing positions in images.
Only thing I can recommend (as well as for literally any script) is using set -u. Only because it’s awful to debug unset variables and there’s never a use case for using unset variables.
A blanket for a blanket and the whole world goes… cold?
They shouldn’t give a Fuchs.
N+1 men, obviously
Even though this isn’t C, but if we take from the C11 draft §6.8.5 point 6 (https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1570.pdf):
An iteration statement whose controlling expression is not a constant expression, that performs no input/output operations, does not access volatile objects, and performs no synchronization or atomic operations in its body, controlling expression, or (in the case of a for statement) its expression-3, may be assumed by the implementation to terminate
“new Random().nextInt()” might perform I/O though so it could still be defined behavior. Or the compiler does not assume this assumption.
But an aggressive compiler could realize the loop would not terminate if x does not become 10 so x must be 10 because the loop can be assumed to terminate.
Infinite loops are often weird though. They could be seen as undefined behavior and the compiler may do whatever it feels like.
Not sure about the last one though. The other two are trivial to optimize away.
Maybe they’re supporting Ivorians (which I looked up because I would’ve called them Ivory Coastians) instead.
I’ll take the 80% treats for the 20% effect, please.