I had to reread this comment multiple times since I felt that I had a fundamental failure of reading comprehension somewhere along the line.
> The problem statement says "find the record" but all the answers are about printing the median age.
> So answer to the question posed? None of the above.
The problem statement does not say "find the record". The problem statement says, fully quoted:
> Rank the responses in the order of their relative concern with programming considerations, economic considerations, or other important considerations. If you were the programmer, which approach would you prefer? If you were Mary Jones, which approach would you prefer?
Indeed. The question asks you to rank responses. Furthermore,
> The problem statement says "find the record" but all the answers are about printing the median age.
No. it doesn't. It asks you to "compute the median age" without asking about any records.
> she has a file of personnel records [2022 update: an Excel sheet] and asks you to develop a program to compute the median age of the personnel in the file. Here are four different ways you might respond:
So the textbook asks you to rank possible ways to respond, and the hypothetical is just asking "can you process this list and tell me the median age". No one in any context is asking for a record.
You’re right. I was looking at option A. Therefore radix sort is strictly the right answer. Simple, easy to read, easy to understand and an order of magnitude faster.
I tested it in Firefox and Chrome. While they both display a spoofed URL in the status bar when hovered, they differ if you right-click the link. In Chrome, nothing changes. In Firefox the status bar string changes to the actual, not spoofed URL.
At least in Firefox, one can check easily what the actual URL is before clicking without having to copy-paste elsewhere.
If it's callstack-based the event handler could easily just run the redirect in setTimeout. Making it time-based might work, but would break a lot of common use-cases. Maybe they could block only cross-origin redirects?
There still is the issue of Mozilla being the only one without a direct incentive to prevent this fix from rolling out. With their whopping 3 percent market share, I doubt they'd be willing to break a web feature we've had for decades.
The way the faking works is that the site catches your click event and redirects you to somewhere else. Therefore, the only fix is to prevent such redirects. Preventing JS redirects would break many things. AJAX form submission with a redirect at the end, for example, is very common.
Preventing them in onclick handlers of a[href] elements would break fewer, but then you have the issue of correlating the redirect with the click. If you simply ban window.href= in the handler, sites could simply use setTimeout or set a flag and have a repeating background task trigger the redirect when the flag is set. Alternatively, you could do something like prevent all redirects X seconds after a link is clicked. Unfortunately, that would only discourage sites that are trying to be fast (like Google). Scam sites are usually slow and bloated anyways.
The trick works by cancelling the link click event and redirecting somewhere else in JS. The only way to prevent that would be to not allow any redirects in JS, including buttons.
I actually believe it's referring to Assassin's Creed 2. It had to check in with the central server to see if a legitimate copy was being played, and the way it was cracked was basically going through every possibility where the check can fire off, recording the request/response, and having the cracked version play back the appropriate response to the request. It basically had to be exhaustively played to get to a point where all the request/response combinations got recorded.
A lot of DRM (eg the one by denuvo) could be bypassed with hooking from kernelmode, hypervisor shenanigans etc.
But that doesn’t comply with the „scene rules“, they always want a clean executable without any background services. I was always impressed by Razer1911 and CPY who obeyed these rules and did all this work just for clout.
I tried this and disappointingly Linux rejects it before programming languages break.
gcc:
a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/test.h:1:10: fatal error: a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/a/test.h: Too many levels of symbolic links
python:
ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'tmp.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a'
They're colour themes. Mozilla's celebrating the fact that you can change Firefox's colour theme while trying to spin it as something super unique.
> we chose “Colorways” rather than “themes” to show we are branching out from our language of “browser” to speak the language of everyday life and everyday users.
Basically, fashion-industry word salad, but for the tech industry! Hooray!
> we chose “Colorways” rather than “themes” to show we are branching out from our language of “browser” to speak the language of everyday life and everyday users.
What's weird here is that they consider "branching out from our language of \"browser\"" a completely normal phrase but the word "theme" far too technical for 'everyday users'.
Though that's nowhere near as weird as the fact that they think "Colourways" is a normal word, that'll disqualify anyone who has English as their second or third language for a start, but maybe it's more commonly known amongst native speakers?
They invented a word because... um... adding jargon to the lexicon results in... less... jargon? I mean, when I saw the word "colorways" I interpreted it as a synonym for "waveguides." Story checks out, I guess?
Colorways is a pretty common word in other areas though, so it's not entirely made up. Colorways is used extensively in the shoe world to describe when new colors/patterns on an older shoe line drop.
It's way more jargony than "theme", which has been used for color themes since at least win 3.1 and is fairly well-known in that sense among the general population.
Meanwhile, I'd never heard of "color ways" until like 3 years ago, and I'd still not have if I didn't pay (too much) attention to tech and industry news.
[EDIT] Oh my god, it's even worse, I read other posts on this thread and just realized that I got it from getting very slightly into shoes, not even from tech news. LOL. Yeah, this is a terrible name.
Funny thing is, I know enough shoe nerds to parse the phrase "on an older shoe line drop," but this is still the first time I've seen the word.
And I know people in more general clothing fashion, and also interior design. Is this a fashion term or is somebody on the naming committee really into shoes?
Oh, apparently, my eyes filter out the word 'fashion'. Shoe nerds. Great market segment to target. They probably know how to install apps. That'll save the ship.
And they really shouldn't. If you're not pissing off your power users you're not moving fast enough. The only user-stories that mass-market browser makers should care about are casual users browsing the web and software developers publishing to to the web.
Power users are a completely different market segment and have totally different needs and expectations from causal users.
This "strategy" will only drive the few remaining users away who actively decided to use Firefox while not winning any new "casual users" over (because those don't care about what differentiates Firefox from Chrome or Safari, they're all just web browsers after all).
But they're not moving fast enough, unfortunately. That's why there are a lot of new features available on Chrome that are not on Firefox, and that matters a lot for normal users because for them it's the browser that's broken, not the website.
> They're colour themes. Mozilla's celebrating the fact that you can change Firefox's colour theme while trying to spin it as something super unique.
This is incredibly misguided to me.
Who is your core base? Clearly, someone who went out of their way to install a third-party browser on an operating system that likely comes with a pre-installed Chromium browser (whether Microsoft or Google) did that for a reason.
And they likely didn't do it because they wanted better themes or were unaware such a feature exists.
Has been user since Netscape open sourced it. Initially it gained a lot of users largely due to it been very customizable and listened to feedbacks. Over the years, I don't use FF anymore especially when they deprecated xul and Waterfox/Palemoon forked out. They lost most of their core that I think they not sure who is their core base.
> we chose “Colorways” rather than “themes” to show we are branching out from our language of “browser” to speak the language of everyday life and everyday users.
It’s the first time in my life I’ve heard the word “colorway”. That’s how disconnected Mozilla is from reality.
It's a fairly common term for shoes, and (I think) for other clothing as well. While I'm not a fan of importing fashion jargon to computing, it's more connected to reality than certain HN commenters seem to be.
It's a "well, yes, but actually no" situation, seeing as some torrent-related programs implement a few draft BEPs. I haven't seen any that support the torrent signing BEP, though. https://www.bittorrent.org/beps/bep_0035.html
Which leads to possibly an interesting legal question: If a third-party is vouching for the quality of a given copyright-infringing torrent, are they liable for the copyright-infringement of the people who download that torrent based on its positive rating?
Some jurisdictions have decided that running a search engine for torrents (especially if it doesn't remove results which rights holders claim are leading to copyright infringement) does make the site operator liable.
I suppose if we are being strict, what we are talking about is vouching for the quality of a .torrent metadata file, which can be downloaded by a torrent client without legal problems from the author of that metadata, and it's only when the metadata is used to download the torrent contents that copyright infringement occurs.
The thought experiment I've considered is what would happen if there were a site where people could vote on short hex sequences of a certain length, to decide which sequences are the best. It could be called the "I Rate Bay", because users give each (hash) sequence a rating from 1 to 10.
Of course all of this ignores the fact that by participating in these ratings, someone is probably incriminating themselves by saying they have not only downloaded the torrent contents but read/installed/watched/listened to it. Using that as the basis of a case against someone seems almost reasonable, but pursuing a "contributory infringement" angle strays a little too far into freedom-of-speech violating territory, in my opinion.
I think there’s an argument to be made that if “quality” is limited in scope to “not malware,” then you’re operating a service to promote the public health of the Internet. If you start talking about whether the torrents are good rips, complete, etc., then it would promote more piracy. Not sure that this argument would pass muster given the history in this space, but I do think it would help stifle a malware propagation channel.
It's an interesting thought experiment. But even if you figure out a way to remain on the right side of the law today, the copyright cartels will just buy some new laws to make whatever they don't like illegal. The only way to stop this corruption is to thoroughly defund them.
https://github.com/qarmin/czkawka