"KeePassXC asks us to be skeptical of them if we are skeptical of LLMs.[0] This is a convincing argument. A password manager doesn't need 300 regular contributors armed with 14 LLMs; it just needs to do its job, be stable, and be ported to Qt 6 already.
"We are a small group of engineers with extensive open source maintenance and information security experience, and we forked KeePassχ from KeePassXC 2.7.10, the last release before the advent of the LLM policy linked above. We like using a robust, secure, and trustworthy password manager, so that's what we'll focus on. Anything on top of that is a bonus."
He created a throwaway account to ask the question without linking his profile to his identity, slipped and replied with the main account, then ran damage control.
I hope he'll take from that he isn't very good at the Jason Bourne stuff and, as "it takes one to know one," seek further confirmation about who paid a visit to his place.
I'm sorry, I really do think you should let the police handle the "who was that guy" angle before moving on to the technical one. It would take more than "drove a Mediacom truck, showed an ID and knew my address" before I concluded the guy Mediacom has no record of sending, and whose behavior violates their policy (and common sense), absolutely must have been either Mediacom or Jason Bourne.
Voting with your wallet doesn't exist. Try to boycott Amazon by blocking the AWS IP ranges and see how unusable the internet becomes for everyday tasks. Corporations continue to push the personal responsibility narrative so they can externalize costs of unethical business practices.
how are you making them lose money by blocking their ip ranges? Your are pretty much giving them money because now they dont need to pay for bandwidth.
> And the US could easily just keep destroying every asset in Iran
Could — and even more so: could easily — in an "if ifs and buts..." sense or materially? Wouldn't they run (weren't they running) out of resources? And having reached the point in which progressing with the destruction of assets requires killing the people encircling those buildings, standing on those bridges, wouldn't a new leadership be committed to revenge nevertheless?
I meant TRANSPARENT filesystem level dedupe. They are doing it at the application level. filesystem level dedupe makes it impossible to store the same file more than once and doesn't consume hardlinks for the references. It is really awesome.
ZFS is great! However, it's too complicated for most Linux server use cases (especially with just one block device attached); it's not the default (root filesystem); and it's not supported for at least one major enterprise Linux distro family.
File system dedupe is expensive because it requires another hash calculation that cannot be shared with application-level hashing, is a relatively rare OS-fs feature, doesn't play nice with backups (because files will be duplicated), and doesn't scale across boxes.
A simpler solution is application-level dedupe that doesn't require fs-specific features. Simple scales and wins. And plays nice with backups.
Hash = sha256 of file, and abs filename = {{aa}}/{{bb}}/{{cc}}/{{d}} where
That costs even more, unreuseable time and effort. It's simpler to dedupe at the application level rather than shift the burden onto N things. I guess you don't understand or appreciate simplicity.
Never mind rethinking Copilot entrypoints; are users still forced to have a Microsoft account "for their own safety"? If so, the company isn't making much of an effort to deceive.
reply