https://xkcd.com/1200/ comes to mind.

Games have no sandboxing anyways. They can access most of the data on the systems on which they run. Whether the game, crack or a HV crack makes little difference.

Sure, running a hypervisor or kernel level does allow them a bit more access, mostly around persistence. But I don’t think it is a huge difference to most people.

So IMHO you are already putting a lot of trust in any pirated software or crack, hypervisor bypasses are really just a small matter of degree. If you don’t trust the crack don’t run it. Easy as that. Or if you want robust protection run games on dedicated hardware with no personal information or in a dedicated untrusted gaming VM.

Because every three letter acronym means more than one thing. There are only 17 576 TLA so they are going to be heavily duplicated.

You should almost always spell out acronyms on the first use.

That’s good to know. But at this point I really don’t want to support this.

Wow, that site is cancer. Multiple popups, dismissing navigates away from the article.

My wife’s last name was Wang. She was planning on taking her husband’s last name her whole life. Joke’s on her.

It’s not really though. They just used the screen from the pregnancy test and replaced all of the other hardware.

As much as I hate it, I’m 90% sure that they did some analysis (probably 10 years ago now) and found that there are enough people that don’t properly configure their computer that IP location is actually a better indicator than the Accept-Language header.

…which of course perpetuates the problem.

The fact is that it depends and it is a bit confusing for people not familiar. But it isn’t hard to get used to.

+8Q, Paris isn’t specific enough. There are multiple +8Q inside Paris. It can also be a bit risky to make short codes like this especially with larger cities as different maps may put the city in different spots.

What does work is +8Q Eiffel Tower which is useful for something like “Meet me here by the Eiffel Tower” or “I’m right here” when you are texting someone you are meeting and you know you are close but can’t see each other.

So you end up with a few common options:

• +8Q Eiffel Tower We are pretty close together but need to get the exact spot.
• V75V+8Q Paris, France For exact spots around a known area.
• 8FW4V75V+8Q For fully qualified with no reference needed.

And a few less useful options:

• 8FW4V7+ This large part of a city.
• 8FW4+ This part of the country.
• 8F+ This area of the world.

If I was designing the system I don’t think I would have done this “trailing zeros assumed” approach. Because IMHO for day-to-day use V75V+ Would be more useful as a shortcut for ????V75V+ rather than the actual V75V????+ showing a rough location on a human scale (in this case the Eiffel Tower park is pretty clearly targeted) rather than an area larger than a city. But that is really the only complaint I have.

The problem is that only your heaviest users are going to pay to remove the ads, so it doesn’t make sense to price the subscription at any sort of average user. You need to slide the price point way up the distribution just to break even.

While Plus Codes are less memorable they are very easy to share verbally. Especially since you only need city + a few characters to be unambiguous. They are very useful any time you need to share a specific location (GPS-style)

This is Parkinson’s Law.

If you generalize it a bit it is “consumption expands to fit available resources”.

Oof, that is really not a good look. This should have been clearly disclosed and probably with a per-notification for the patch release.

There are a few main benefits.

1. For hardware-backed keys they can’t be stolen aside from physically stealing the hardware. So unless your machine has malware there is no way for an attacker to authenticate using them.
2. Even for software keys the site you authenticate to doesn’t learn enough to impersonate you. For example if for some reason your bank leaked some logs with PW + MFA someone could use that to log in as you (although admittedly short timeouts on MFA validity makes that window very small).
3. The browser ensures that you only authenticate to the correct domain. So it prevents phishing. (Although a password manager that only fills into the correct domain also accomplishes this.)

So I think if you are using unique passwords with an automated password manager the effective benefit is quite small. However for the “average computer user” who likely has less than 5 passwords that they use for everything it forces a pretty high base level of security.

I doubt Gaussian blur is an accurate model of real-world situations.

At the end of the day if you are worried about the codes being painted over print a few out and paint over them. Then scan with a variety of scanners.

If I had to come up with some more digital tests I would guess that a few of these are more representative of real-world situations:

1. Lower contrast. For example lighten or darken the whole code. This would simulate things like scanning in low light or with glare.
2. Block out sections of the code. This will test error correction levels and simulate partial damage or pockets of extreme glare.
3. Skew the code in various ways. This simulates the perspective shift of people scanning the code from an angle.

Ideally combine them in a bunch of scenarios then try to scan with a variety of scanner implementations.

It also supports iOS.

No, the DRM wouldn’t work at higher levels so you would have the same requirements with regard to 4k.

Let’s take a little recess and circle back.

Please be civil and polite. This type of aggressive comment insulting people because of the tools that they use isn’t welcome here.

You seem to be making this very complex. But it really isn’t. Yes, git doesn’t track renames. So you are working around it by splitting your operation into 2 commits.

1. A pure rename.
2. A file change.

This way 1 is always considered a rename and 2 is just a regular file change with the same path. You may also consider tweaking the default rename detection threshold with flags like --find-renames or options like diff.renameLimit.

Would it be nice if Git tracked renames? Probably. But that isn’t how the data model works so it is unlikely to happen soon. But maybe they could add some metadata.

I think it doesn’t really make sense. Because you can’t “squash” one commit. squash is taking multiple commits and making them one.

When you do a “squash merge” you are really saying “squash all the commits that are on this branch and not the target” then merge.

So you can’t “squash a merge commit” you need at least one additional commit to squash in.