Note that a sandbox escape is often possible via TIOCSTI (CVE-2017-5226) [0] unless a special flag (--new-session) is used.
Bubblewrap is aware of this, yet their documentation gives no indication that this flag is necessary to produce a secure sandbox. In --help, the documentation of --new-session is simply "Create a new terminal session," which severely understates its importance.
It's frustrating to have such a useful tool be knowingly easy to misuse.
The type of this is `time.Duration` (or int64 internally), not `time.Second` (which is a const with a value).
I agree, though, that this is not quite sound, because it can be misused, as shown above with `time.Sleep(delaySecs * time.Second)`.
In Kotlin you can do `1.seconds + 1.minutes` but not `1.seconds * 1.minutes` (compilation error), which I quite like. Here is a playground link: https://pl.kotl.in/YZLu97AY8
They're making great progress! There's still more work to do, but I've been very impressed by the improvements made by the Element team over the past year, ranging from many small details to large usability features like the UI for spaces as an easier way to organize communities
In that case, Safari should make it clear that its users should not expect web application to work well. OP proposes helping Safari do that by displaying informational banners when appropriate.
Applications work just fine. Developers have to be a bit more precise.
For features not supported, really a non issue, considering the Android update and support cycles
That's not true, there are numerous bugs especially on ios. What all browser vendors have figured out is that browser updates should be decoupled form OS updates and this is what Google and Microsoft are getting right,frequent updates, new browser engine features and fixes are available almost immediately.
A lot "features not supported" by Safari is supported by Android > 4.4.4. I can target >90% of users on older Androids and still have compatibility issues with Safari users. Unacceptable.
Also try searching "journalist in blue" via the default (not image) article search on Bing. It lacks the relevant results found on Google or DuckDuckGo.
> In this: "the host will open the door at random and in this example it happen to have a goat" vs "the host will never open a door with a car behind it".)
If the host opens a door with a goat, then it doesn't matter whether or not it was intentional.
The intention of the host only matters if the contestant would have to choose the subsequent action (switching or not) before the hosts opens a door.
If the host has revealed a goat door, and the contestant then has to decide what to do, the intentions of the host for having chosen the door are irrelevant.
(Noting again that the mechanism doesn't matter, what matters is the odds of various behavior by the host, but - I think reasonably - using "intentions of the host" as a proxy for that.)
The intentions of the host do matter.
Imagine the host picks the correct door by the following procedure: 1) picks an available door at random; 2) if that door has a goat, opens it; 3) if that door has the car, opens the other door.
I hope you will agree that this is equivalent to the problem as originally intended - Monty can be relied on to reveal a goat, and exactly why doesn't matter.
Breaking it down into equally likely cases, assuming the contestant picks door 3:
A) The car is behind door 1, Monty picks door 1, Monty corrects.
B) The car is behind door 1, Monty picks door 2
C) The car is behind door 2, Monty picks door 1
D) The car is behind door 2, Monty picks door 2, Monty corrects
E) The car is behind door 3, Monty picks door 1
F) The car is behind door 3, Monty picks door 2
When Monty reveals the goat behind (say) door 2, we know we're in case A, B, or F. All remain equally likely, and switching wins in A and B.
If Monty would not have corrected, then revealing the goat behind door 2 eliminates (the new) A as well, leaving us with only B and F, again equally likely.
If all of this remains unconvincing, I encourage you to write a simple simulation of the problem.
So, thinking about it really hard and reading about it online:
My comment was definitely wrong: If Monty could have opened a car door, but just didn't, then duh the probabilities for the car to be behind the doors are different than if Monty always opens a goat door. So in that way, the intentions of Monty, meaning how he chooses, definitely matter.
But I think your example here doesn't show that? Are you trying to illustrate the Monty Fall variation?
Sorry it took me so long to get back to this; real life intervenes sometimes.
I think what I was trying to do was frame the original Monty Hall problem as a variant of Monty Fall, in a way that (I hoped) makes it clear where Monty is doing work to convert some outcomes into other outcomes (and therefore producing different likelihoods).
I highly recommend using the Nix package manager alongside whatever you're comfortable with. That way you can `nix shell -p foobar` when you need a package quickly or fallback to brew/apt/etc if you're not yet comfortable addressing the situation in Nix.
Bubblewrap is aware of this, yet their documentation gives no indication that this flag is necessary to produce a secure sandbox. In --help, the documentation of --new-session is simply "Create a new terminal session," which severely understates its importance.
It's frustrating to have such a useful tool be knowingly easy to misuse.
[0]: https://github.com/containers/bubblewrap/issues/142