I remember getting a copy of the Joy of Cooking a couple of decades ago specifically for the peanut butter cookie recipe (a childhood favorite), and was SO disappointed in the results that I eventually tracked down a 1975 copy to compare. The specifics elude me at the moment, but IIRC, the majo recipe differences came down to about twice as much peanut butter in the 1975 version, and twice as much flour in the new one.
Like, the results aren't even close to being comparable. The new recipe produces something you might call "peanut butter flavored shortbread", I guess.
Yeah I was a hard no on the new edition (my first copy, 1979, was a going-to-college gift from my truly wonderful parents-as-cooks). The reason being was when it came out multiple people noticed that the truly exquisite JoC brownie recipe was now mediocre. Why would they do that?
This feature of very long lived cookbooks with inconstant author lists needs to be better understood.
Well, you've now made your original intent specific, but in case you didn't draw the requisite lesson I'll make that explicit.
Because text has less bandwidth than almost any other medium, certain forms of humor are much more likely to be understood (in this case, your "gentle playfulness" was taken to be snark, sarcasm, and point scoring).
If you insist on using this and similar forms of humor that, ordinarily, depend quite strongly on intonation to convey intent, you'll have to be much more explicit to avoid being misunderstood. You are going to have actually state your intent explicitly as part of your communication. This need not entirely destroy the humor, for example, you might try something like this:
And so I say to you (playfully, sir, playfully): etc.
Or this:
Yadda yadda yadda. (I kid, I kid!)
The Internet-native forms of this are the humble ;-) or the newer j/k, but I find that it is all too easy to overlook a 3-character sequence, particularly if the passage being so marked is even as long as a single paragraph, but they can serve their purpose when used for the commonplace one-liner.
Was the performance issue pure luck? Or was it a subtle bit of sabotage by someone inside the attacking group worried about the implications of the capability?
If it had been successfully and secretly deployed, this is the sort of thing that could make your leaders much more comfortable with starting a "limited war".
It was a psyop to increase the scrutiny around OSS components.
Kidding. Mostly...
But given the amount of scrutiny folks are going to start putting into some supply chains... Probably cheaper to execute than most company's annual security awareness budgets cost.
Considering how difficult it might be (and identifiable) to attempt direct exploitation of this without being sure your target is vulnerable, it’s plausible the performance issue allowed for an identifiable delay in attempts. This might be useful in determining whether to attempt the exploit, with an auto-skip if it received a response in less than N milliseconds.
That's just the usual way of attempting to connect to an HTTP server running on a different port. Sometimes you see websites hosted on port 8080 or something like that.
I wonder if the fact they "had" to use a dependency and jump through a number of hoops suggest they're not involved in the conspiracy? As if they had this sort of access and effort surely systemd itself would be an easier target?
But that's not saying this is the only conspiracy, maybe there's hundreds of other similar things in published code right now, and one was noticed soon after introduction merely due to luck.
Well, you have a point, but the separation is hardly as stark as all that. Both film and television have works that definitely qualify as Science Fiction, and some are even original rather than adaptations from books.
A few examples: 2001: A Space Odyssey, Fantastic Voyage, Moon, much of Twilight Zone and Outer Limits, Prospect, etc.
And for that matter there is plenty of SciFi in print as well, and it isn't all novelizations of movies and TV shows.
There is certainly more room for exposition in a novel (a fact which plenty of authors have abused over the decades, and plenty of directors have abdicated responsibility for by tacking on lengthy voiceover or on-screen text introductions), which often allows for more complete worldbuilding to explore whatever contrafactual premise the story is built around, but it is possible on-screen as well, as long as you don't rely solely on the dialog to convey it. For that matter, books shouldn't rely solely on the dialog for that purpose either.
Of course, on-screen dramatic works aren't the only ones that face the problem of conveying a setting in few words. Novellas, novelettes, and short stories have similar constraints to various degrees.
"The Heart of the Comet" was co-authored with Gregory Benford. It is one of my favorite books, and I wish they would collaborate again.
Incidentally, Brin and Benford along with Greg Bear, are collectively known as the "Killer Bs". Practically everything written by any of the three is likely to be a great read.
Like, the results aren't even close to being comparable. The new recipe produces something you might call "peanut butter flavored shortbread", I guess.
reply