>calculating the total size of the string to allocate memory
In some languages this is 90% of everything you do with strings. In other languages it's still 90% of everything done to strings, but done automatically.
Most people aren't careful about what information is collected on them in the first place. Are people going to stop sharing things on Twitter because they're afraid of giving up one more tidbit of information to big data? I don't think so.
It's besides the point anyway. Any mechanism that primes or prompts the sharer to be mindful of accuracy before sharing could help reduce sharing of misinformation, according to the results from the article.
>The copy_file_range() system call looks like a relatively straightforward feature; it allows user space to ask the kernel to copy a range of data from one file to another, hopefully applying some optimizations along the way.
That's exactly what I was asking. The Go developers are knocking themselves out chasing this syscall in the hopes that it might improve performance? Has it been benchmarked?
Unless I spend time to look into who verified it and decide if I trust them - this doesn't mean much - for eg. the article above claims their crypto is criticised - since it's their own implementation it could be intentionally weakened for all I know, even with a review it's possible to sneak by a backdoor vulnerability - security projects with a lot more users had major flaws discovered well into the project lifetime (eg. OpenSSL heartbleed).
Telegram private chats are not end-to-end encrypted. They are opt-in, in the name of "secret chats". If that's not done, chats are stored on their cloud in plain view. While Signal can offer synced end-to-end encrypted messaging, I wonder why Telegram cannot. Probably comes with a few tradeoffs like slowness and loss of features?
How on earth is that anonymous? All of your emails are on the same domain, and nobody else is using that domain. As soon as I see an email @jamesboehmersdomain, I know that it belongs to jamesboehmer.
You're right, it's not 100% anonymous. But my name's not in the domain, and I use WhoisGuard with my registrar. It's reasonably effective, cheap, and a low effort way to deflect the bots and identify suspicious activity.
7786655's point was that the custom domain is not perfect anonymity because if someone knows who owns the domain, then they know the owner of every email. If someone discovers my pseudonymous gmail account, then the same problem exists. But perfect anonymity was never my goal.
I wouldn't tie my entire digital identity to whatever's cheapest if I could avoid it.
In my case I use my CC TLD. I'm in a generally stable nation that follows the rule of law and the administrator of the CC TLD has all sorts of processes in place that I have access to as far as regaining control of the domain if it's inappropriately transferred, making appeals, etc.
The extra $10 or so a year this costs is very much worth it to me as basically a form of insurance.
like Hamuko said, there are domains like .party, etc that are cheap. However, some sites won't take them. My main junk account is a wildcard .party domain. It'll work with mosts sites, but the odd one won't take them. I ended up registering a .com that goes to the same inbox to get around these.
Another issue is that unless one also gets a new IP address for the mail server, it might be possible to associate the real domain with this "anonymous" one.
In some languages this is 90% of everything you do with strings. In other languages it's still 90% of everything done to strings, but done automatically.