Not a Fedora user, but according to https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/APIFileSystems/ adding a new fstab entry with the correct option should just work. They even give changing the size of /tmp as an example usecase :)
metiulekm
joined 1 year ago
If I understand correctly, the study looked at people over time, so what is investigated is the behavior of mentally healthy people and what happens to them in the future.
It's still not perfect, since they used a date of diagnosis as a proxy for people becoming depressed. This is actually mentioned as one of the limitations in the study (in the second to last paragraph of the Discussion section).
I am no cryptographer, but I understand that in the SSH protocol, the keys are only used for signing anyway: that is, the user is authenticated by saying "I want to authenticate with some key, and here's some data signed by this key", and this is completely separate to encryption. It also seems that GitHub encourages using separate keys for commit signing and general SSH access, which might alleviate some of the ickyness.
You are really not wrong though, I feel like people only started using SSH for this because it kinda worked and they already have been familiar with it.
Just wanted to say that you actually can sign git commits using SSH keys! :) It's nowhere close to being as flexible as what you suggest, but it's also not GPG, so there's that.
I thought I knew how to resolve the < and > thing, but it didn't work at all. I guess the sanitizing code is a bit overzealous after the recent vulnerability.
Anyway, your code will look slightly nicer, at least on the web interface, if you surround it with three backticks, like this
```c
void CharShifter(char* string, int LengthOfString, int IdxOfOpenChar);
```
Edit: Actually, I thought about it, and I don’t think clang’s behavior is wrong in the examples he cites. Basically, you’re using an uninitialized variable, and choosing to use compiler settings which make that legal, and the compiler is saying “Okay, you didn’t give me a value for this variable, so I’m just going to pick one that’s convenient for me and do my optimizations according to the value I picked.” Is that the best thing for it to do? Maybe not; it certainly violates the principle of least surprise. But, it’s hard for me to say it’s the compiler’s fault that you constructed a program that does something surprising when uninitialized variables you’re using happen to have certain values.
You got it correct in this edit. But the important part is that gcc will also do this, and they both are kinda expected to do so. The article cites some standard committee discussions: somebody suggested ensuring that signed integer overflow in C++20 will not UB, and the committee decided against it. Also, somebody suggested not allowing to optimize out the infinite loops like 13 years ago, and then the committee decided that it should be allowed. Therefore, these optimisations are clearly seen as features.
And these are not theoretical issues by any means, there has been this vulnerability in the kernel for instance: https://lwn.net/Articles/342330/ which happened because the compiler just removed a null pointer check.
You might also like https://github.com/nvim-neorg/neorg which is not meant to be compatible with Emacs org-mode, but rather something new that's built around similar ideas but for Neovim. Hadn't used it myself though, only heard about it.
Folks probably downvoting from All, as it's hard to know what this post is about without information about your community :/
You could make an argument that not using banking apps decreases your security, since most banks use either SMS or those apps as the second factor while confirming the operations. It is true that the apps are of varying quality, but SMS is not really a serious alternative. Some banks do have apps that are limited to confirming operations, and one bank where I live did recently start accepting U2F, which is amazing news.
I am a total beginner and am learning and experimenting a lot, but I find myself always gravitating back to the James Hoffmann method too, in my case almost exactly the original method.
One thing that I am playing around with right now is using the Flow Control cap instead of placing the plunger on top after adding water. That's mostly just to simplify the prep a bit while also making it a bit more consistent. I probably don't want to do inverted for now :)
The paper is linked in the reference section at the bottom :) Direct link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06668-3