Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | algorithmsRcool's commentslogin

I'm not sure i understand your comment, .editorconfig works just fine for VB files as well as F#

If you look at Garnet's source code it is very non-idiomatic C#. It goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid the garbage collector. Almost all memory management is done with unmanaged memory and pointers.

They also have a very clever internal design and do some other tricks like strategically avoiding async/await and moving I/O operations onto the network request thread.


That doesn't make it ok or less impactful. He's been running MyNoise for years and it sounds like if he had been attacked before, this one was much worse, prompting a blog post about it.


You are correct but although the B52 can technically carry the GBU-57 MOP, but it was only done that way during the initial testing of the weapon. The B2 is the only aircraft the USAF actually uses for that munition in combat scenarios.

Also the B2 is better suited for extreme endurance missions like this where the plane is in flight for >36 hours. It has a toilet, microwave and a cot for the pilots to use during the more mundane parts of the mission.


No real secret sauce, the weapon weighs almost 30,000lbs and most of it is just hardened metal to make it heavy. The warhead is only ~5,300lbs of explosive


The kinetics matter here. The B2 flies much higher than the C-130 which would aid the GBU-57 MOP (almost certainly used here) in it's ability to penetrate to maximum depth. 80% of the 15 ton weight of that bomb is just heavy metal to give it maximum energy as it borrows into the ground.

Also, each B2 can carry 2 MOPs making it a better platform than a C-130, and that isn't even taking the stealth of the platform into account


> Also, each B2 can carry 2 MOPs

Wow. That is amazing. 60,000 lbs. combined.


Did anyone else's antivirus complain about an exploit on this page?

---EDIT---

I'm about 98% sure this blog has a browser hijack embedded in it targeted at windows+MSEDGE browsers that attempted to launch a malicious powershell script to covertly screen record the target machine


That's a major claim. The only thing different in this blog post from my others is that I've embedded an executable python notebook in an iframe. It's a marimo notebook that runs code using WASM in your browser. That project is open source too, with no exploit as far as I know.

The code for my blog is here : https://github.com/RohanGautam/rohangautam.github.io

If you could point to anything specific to support that claim, would be nice.


I would be happy to be wrong on this one. But I've gotten two pretty convincing threat notifications when visiting the page from the Sentinel One antivirus platform saying that my msedge process had been compromised by a known exploit.

I'll try to get more details.

I should note, I do not believe the site is malicious, but i am worried about 3rd party compromise of the site without the owner's knowledge


I see, that's strange. Yeah, feel free to share the details/logs with me - you can open an issue on my blog's repo with the relevant details and system info.

However, I'm still suspecting it's something specific to your antivirus not knowing what to do with WASM code(which is used on this page). I found something similar on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/eaglercraft/s/heVtPy60lG. I wonder if that's the issue.


You should not be using antivirus browser plugins anyway.


This was not from a browser plugin, this was from my system antivirus


> It's more design and more thinking upfront, which is something the development community has moved away from in the past ~20 years with the rise of agile development and open source.

I agree, but even smaller than thinking in agile is just a tight iteration loop when i'm exploring a design. My ADHD makes upfront design a challenge for me and I am personally much more effective starting with a sketch of what needs to be done and then iterating on it until I get a good result.

The loop of prompt->study->prompt->study... is disruptive to my inner loop for several reasons, but a big one is that the machine doesn't "think" like i do. So the solutions it scaffolds commonly make me say "huh?" and i have to change my thought process to interpet them and then study them for mistakes. My intution and iteration is, for the time being, more effective than this machine assited loop for the really "interesting" code i have to write.

But i will say that AI has been a big time saver for more mundane tasks, especially when I can say "use this example and apply it to the rest of this code/abstraction".


> "The loop of prompt->study->prompt->study... is disruptive to my inner loop for several reasons, but a big one is that the machine doesn't "think" like i do. So the solutions it scaffolds commonly make me say "huh?" and i have to change my thought process to interpet them and then study them for mistakes. My intution and iteration is, for the time being, more effective than this machine assisted loop..."

My thoughts exactly as an ADHD dev.

Was having trouble describing my main issue with LLM-assisted development...

Thank you for giving me the words!


It looks like Coyote[0], which is used in azure, was an evolution of P# which was an evolution of P

[0]https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/...


+1.

We have used Coyote/P# not just for model checking an abstract design (which no doubt is very useful) but testing real implementations of production services at Microsoft.


How do Coyote and P differ?


OK, but then not for generating production code?

I thought I read that somewhere, but now I can't find the claim


Microsoft has a flavor of this for .NET called Coyote[0]

[0] https://microsoft.github.io/coyote/#overview/how/


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: