just_curioussss

11 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

A new study of chickens overturns the popular assumption that evolution is only visible over long time scales.

And yet the popular assumption remains the same, because it is the ignorance of the general public that perpetuates it and not the lack of research.

The solution: stop calling it popular assumption and start treating it as fact, journalists.

just_curioussss

11 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

Your comparison is not analogous. It should be; a car owner that left the car unlocked with a bunch of private information inside.

just_curioussss

11 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

Imagine what would happen if serious hackers decided to go after this company. Maybe they will implement https this time.

The kid exposed a major security problem and overall helped everyone, even the company in the long term.

just_curioussss

11 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

Because doctors don't wear masks to protect themselves.

Of course they do, because they are also humans vulnerable to diseases. Even more so because they are exposed daily and are usually not the ones introducing diseases into the environment. The masks protect both the patient and the doctor. Mask can also protect doctors from chemicals they might be routinely exposed to.

In any case, they wear masks. Your comment is a red herring. The important part is the social stigma of (not) wearing masks and how to prevent it.

just_curioussss

11 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

Never though about it that way. There are many other jobs that expose their workers to airborne chemicals. One that comes to mind immediately is anything near urban traffic.

Could society adapt for those workers to start wearing masks or similar protection. Doctors do that all the time, why not hairdressers?

just_curioussss

11 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

How fact does it start to repeat itself?

just_curioussss

11 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

  A couple of greatest hits:

[–]LouisDeFeo 2 points 16 hours ago*

Since a new drug came out that's almost the same as your company's for such a cheap price, how do expect to turn a profit now?

[–]martinshkreli[S] 0 points 16 hours ago

no new drug is FDA approved for toxoplasmosis.

[–]LouisDeFeo 1 point 16 hours ago

You're right, excuse me. I meant when it gets approved, how do you expect to turn a profit?

[–]martinshkreli[S] 0 points 16 hours ago

they're not going to do that. they don't have the resources.

  and:

[–]strik3three 2 points 16 hours ago

You've said the rise in the cost of Daraprim won't effect most patients because the insurance companies will absorb the cost. Does it not stand to reason though that the insurance companies will pass those cost back along to the policy holders who pay the premiums. How does that argument not perpetuate the problem of out of control medical cost?

[–]martinshkreli[S] -1 points 16 hours ago

It definitely stands to reason. But the other thing to consider is that as more companies generate revenue and profits new companies sprout to compete with them for that profit pool. This keeps costs down.

  and:

[–]HomerPepsi 1 point 12 hours ago

Money aside, how do you feel about being hated by the world?

[–]martinshkreli[S] 0 points 5 hours ago

It doesn't bother me. My priority is patients and I have a ton of support from them. I don't answer to the media or random internet crazies.

  And the winner (appeal to common practice fallacy):

https://twitter.com/MartinShkreli/status/656180089747611651

just_curioussss

11 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

No one will ever read this, but I just wanted to point out that the whole allocation is simply incorrect.

Even with just namelen+1 you can still get undefined behavior. This is because if namelen is shorter than the padding of the object struct FTSENT, the beginning of the next object struct stat, will overlap with the previous object.

The correct solution is to make sure that the next object begins after the first one, and still remains inside of the allocated block. This is a good example, why the struct hack just isn't worth it, and it itself is arguably undefined behavior.

To allocate it all, remove the struct hack and simply call the malloc three times, once for each struct and then for the string. If one allocation is required, then allocate enough memory for all three objects separated by enough alignment padding. Doing this will allocate a couple of bytes more which is a couple percent overall, but at least your code will be correct. Since they don't pack the struct thus loosing bytes for internal padding anyway, I can't understand why the usage of the struct hack.

just_curioussss

11 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

Note, this refers to: https://opensource.apple.com/source/Libc/Libc-1044.40.1/gen/...

just_curioussss

11 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

And who is calling their internet service, Internet? Oh, right, the same person.

What's next, Facebook?

Oh.....

just_curioussss

11 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

Depending on the value of namelen, and the padding at the end of the struct FTSENT, struct p->fts_statp will occupy one byte out of bounds of the allocated memory.

The comment made in the code is incorrect:

Since the fts_name field is declared to be of size 1, the fts_name pointer is namelen + 2 before the first possible address of the stat structure.

namelen + 1 is the first possible address for the stat structure.

just_curioussss

11 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

There is a defined method for comparing such pointers. Take unsigned char pointers to them and inspect their bytes. Then write your code, using that information, that does the comparison, assuming you know your architecture.

It is defined behavior to read the bytes of any object using unsigned char.

just_curioussss

11 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

That is called unspecified behavior not undefined behavior. Major difference.

just_curioussss

11 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

If lock calls include a memory barrier, which they should, then they cannot be reordered.

Edit: Your code has undefined behavior, unless the two pointers point to the same object, which is unlikely in a realistic example.

just_curioussss

11 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

By rejecting a certain pattern you weakening the whole password scheme. It is no longer random, it is human chosen.

An attacker can under certain circumstances exploit this behavior. For example, if they notice you are picking shorter words or words that consist of certain characters, they will have an easier time to crack the password. Whole categories or patterns can be rejected because of that, reducing the search space.

An extreme version of your method, is picking only the patterns that relate exclusively to you, like picking your favorite music or hobbies. Then the whole scheme becomes useless.

just_curioussss

11 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

I found a couple different definitions:

https://opensource.apple.com/source/OpenSSH/OpenSSH-95/opens...

https://opensource.apple.com/source/xnu/xnu-792.13.8/bsd/ppc...

https://opensource.apple.com/source/sendmail/sendmail-32/sen...

They align toward the higher address.

just_curioussss

11 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

This part is also suspicious:

p->fts_statp = (struct stat )ALIGN(p->fts_name + namelen + 2);*

Unless ALIGN aligns the pointer towards the lower address( which would be weird ), that +2 might get out of bounds depending on how many bytes is ALIGNBYTES.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Edit:

This is the header that defines the struct FTSENT:

https://opensource.apple.com/source/Libc/Libc-1044.40.1/incl...

comments