You don't get to call it "stepping out of line" if there are no consequences for doing so. See for example how the My Lai Massacre was handled[1]. The pattern continues when it comes to shooting down an airliner[2], an airstrike on a hospital[3] and many more cases.
If no-one ever gets more than a stern talking to, then clearly there is no line. These actions are as close to adhering to policy as you can get without saying it outright.
That description does not match the RCA 1802 [1] perfectly, but it is probably the best known microprocessor (not a microcontroller, though) without a dedicated program counter. There are a lot of misconceptions about it floating on the internet, so I would not be surprised to hear it described as you did.
> Honestly, if coerced sideloading is a real attack vector, [...]
I don't believe that it is. I follow this "scene" pretty closely, and that means I read about successful scams all the time. They happen in huge numbers. Yet I have never encountered a reliable report of one that utilized a "sideloaded"[1] malicious app. Not once. Phishing email messages and web sites, sure. This change will not help counter those, though.
I don't even see what you could accomplish with a malicious app that you couldn't otherwise. I would certainly be interested to hear of any real world cases demonstrating the danger.
[1] When I was a kid, this was called "installing."
UTF-32 allows for constant time access to code points. Neither UTF-8 nor UTF-16 can do the same (there are 2 to the power of 20 valid code points, though not all are in use).
While most characters might be encodable as a single code point, Python does not normalize strings, so there is no guarantee that even relatively normal characters are actually stored as single code points.
No, the worst outcome is much worse than that. You need to keep track of what is going on around, or you won't be able to account for you surroundings when you start moving again. I see these failures all the time: a driver of a stopped car is distracted, then realizes that the lights have turned green (or, even more commonly in these types of situations, a space has opened for them to merge into or pass through) and they "have" to get moving, now. Now they are in a hurry, and obviously can't afford to take a moment to take a careful stock of everything going on around them, so inevitably, they end up missing something. Usually someone else (such as myself, pushing a stroller) will be able to react in time and an accident is avoided, but it should not go like that. If you can't or aren't willing to attend to traffic, get out of it.
In Finnish you might use "kuunteluttaa". You start with "kuunnella", "to listen" and inflect it in the way that turn a verb into "make someone verb". This particular example is a little unusual, but the same thing is commonly used with e.g. "taste". It works with all kinds of verbs, so it comes handy when you want your car serviced or your house painted.
SMS does not support images either, and email supports HTML. I'm not all that familiar with Word, but I believe it supports some formatting options too.
I worry we're veering very much off topic, so let me state, for the benefit of anyone thinking that this is still about the original comment, that I consider the quote provided by abnercoimbre to be both correct and relevant to the submitted topic. The rest of this comment is not about that.
No, I do not consider a document to be a part of another document, unless it's embedded in the other document. I don't, for example, consider the RFC 2822 [1] to be a part of the RFC 5322 [2] event though they are obviously related and the latter refers (and, indeed, links) to the former. If, in a conversation about the 5322, someone quoted the 2822 without providing a reference to it, I would find it confusing.
As for "Choose Your Own Adventure" books, I'll have to admit that I don't have much experience with them, but from what I believe I know about them, I'd say that I would not consider the whole book to be a single document when it comes to referencing. Would it make sense to say something like "The adventure in the book ends with you caught by the security guard" if that is just one of the many alternative endings, one that many might not encounter when playing?
And expanding on that, would you consider it appropriate referencing to say "That is a crime according to the French criminal law" without specifying where it says that? (I'm assuming here that the French criminal law is a single document.)
The other example is interesting. I would consider a wrong (or broken) link to be an error in the document, but I would not consider erroneous statements in the linked document to be inaccuracies or errors in the linking document. Imagine that instead of an outdated policy, the linked document was one promoting homeopathy. Would you say that the original document contains misleading statements about healthcare? I would not.
You will notice that the provided quote is not from the submitted page[1] but from another page[2] on the same site. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one on this page that assumes that quotes on top level comments are sourced from the submitted page unless otherwise noted.
Mind you, I'm not defending jabiko here – I responded to the following comment: "Welcome to the web. Pages often have hyperlinks that can be followed to see related information." which I did not find reasonable.
And conveniently, Hacker News supports hyperlinks, so you can easily provide a source for your quotes so that everyone reading your post don't need to search for it again.
"The people living at this address might be pedophiles and sexual predators. Not saying that they are, but if your children are in the vicinity, I strongly suggest you get them back to safety."
That's not really what happened. The European Commission made gave the manufacturers a choice: they could sit down and come up with standard that they voluntarily accepted to follow or the EC could write the standard and force the manufacturers to follow it [1].
I imagine they would have eventually converged on USB anyway, but when the upcoming rules (or "rules") were announced, you definitely could not count on being able to charge your phone using anyone else's charger (or one of the many that had come with your previous phones).
Counterfactuals are tricky, and we'll never know for sure what might have been, but seeing laptop manufacturers dragging their feet, I really can't see how you could feel so certain that the market would have fixed the mess that existed just as quickly.
Not so, but if you're to pick one company over all the others as being the most deserving of your ire, EA seems like a rather strange choice compared to, say, Nestlé [1], Chiquita [2], The Coca-Cola Company [3] or Shell [4]. One might even wonder if there isn't something wrong with your priorities.
You keep on asserting that, but what are you basing it on?
According to Wikipedia[1], "In 1990, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) defined (software) reverse engineering (SRE) as "the process of analyzing a subject system to identify the system's components and their interrelationships and to create representations of the system in another form or at a higher level of abstraction" in which the "subject system" is the end product of software development." It goes on to clarify that "Reverse engineering can be performed from any stage of the product cycle, not necessarily from the functional end product."
Further, "There are two components in reverse engineering: redocumentation and design recovery."
Are you arguing that the work here does not fit the definition or that the definition is wrong? In the latter case, could you please share your definition, and maybe even explain why it is superior to IEEE's?
Developing a reusable launch vehicle is not needed for a fast launch cadence. The expendable Soyuz family has had 2006 launches since 1957 [1]. That's one in just over 12 days, and in reality, the cadence has been a lot faster at times (for long, continuous stretches).
That seems weird. I would expect optimizer to be able to do anything a rapid fire joystick could, so if the simulation code could be tricked that way, should it not have become apparent during the brute forcing? The other option is, of course, that you exploited a problem with the input handling instead. But then, the result presumably could not be stored in a replay file, right? Otherwise, again, the optimizer could have found it, after all. Were you able to replay those huge jumps?
If you happen to have Randal Munroe's what if? [1] on your bookshelf, look up the chapter titled "Sparta". It should convince you that the story of arrows blocking the sun is probably not true.
If you don't have it, you could try to do the math yourself. Munroe assumes that 1) an arrow intercepts 40 cm² of sunlight, 2) an archer looses 8 to 10 arrows a minute and 3) each arrow spends an average of three seconds in flight. You could adjust those numbers to taste, but I would not expect the conclusion to change.
You might want to check out The Amazing $1 Microcontroller [1] which explores multiple microcontrollers that could be had for less than $1 (when buying a hundred of them) in 2020. I haven't checked how much the prices have dropped since (if at all) but it could still be a good starting point when looking for parts at the 8021's price range.
If no-one ever gets more than a stern talking to, then clearly there is no line. These actions are as close to adhering to policy as you can get without saying it outright.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre#Investigation_...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 (there is even less to see about the aftermath here: everyone got a medal)
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_hospital_airstrike (this time someone was disciplined)