how do we know Kagi is not just hoarding to enshitify?

"if you are not the customer, you are the product". Or to phrase it differently: they have a strong incentive not to enshittify, as that would lose them lots of paying customers.

That being said, there is no guarantee that they will not turn shitty later. There never is and never will be, with any service you dont host yourself.

"I know for a fact that I'm not going to go to jail. Not one day in jail. I'm going to laugh my ass off when all these motherf***ers are saying I'm going for 30 years, 20 years, five years, 10 years. I'm not even going to do one day, bro. They'll give me a fine and say, 'Don't come back to Korea.' You're the one that's going to look so dumb when I don't get any jailtime or anything. Bro, I'm going to laugh like a f**king villain.

amazing.

Here are the steps:

• The attacker creates a standard Git repository.
• They commit a single symbolic link pointing to a sensitive target.
• Using the PutContents API, they write data to the symlink. The system follows the link and overwrites the target file outside the repository.
• By overwriting .git/config (specifically the sshCommand), the attacker can force the system to execute arbitrary commands--

amazing.

. But it is trained well enough to correlate left and right together

eliza could do that 60 years ago

Our societies have not previously tolerated spaces that are beyond the reach of law enforcement, where criminals can communicate safely and child abuse can flourish.

I am pretty sure, churches were "tolerated spaces" bevor e2ee was a thing.

its zero-trust architecture is programmed in a memory-safe language with no supply chain to monitor!

this is good.

She had it coming. This mess is her fault after all.

Don't believe me? Listen to the Science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkrcxLgHn-w

3. Users are finally figuring out that some Linux distros are easy to use

so recommending arch linux to newbies was counter productive all along?

suprised_pikachu.bmp

As usual, the US is already one step ahead: they cut out the middleman by skiping a step.

the linux-file-deletion is used as a example for good software design. It has a very simple interface with little room for error while doing exactly what the caller intended.

In John Ousterhout's "software design philosophy" a chapter is called "define errors out of existence". In windows "delete" is defined as "the file is gone from the HDD". So it must wait for all processes to release that file. In Linux "unlink" is defined as "the file can't be accessed anymore". So the file is gone from the filesystem immediately and existing file-handles from other processes will life on.

The trade-off here is: "more errors for the caller of delete" vs "more errors due to filehandles to dead files". And as it turns out, the former creates issues for both developers and for users, while the later creates virtually no errors in practice.

Latex: Problem --> \def\please@#1#2#3#4{\e@kill#2#3{\me#1}#4@now} -->