lysdexic

I agree that complexity is the problem and I’m avoiding Kubernetes like the plague. I set up a nomad cluster in a few days and it just works, has service discovery, and is perfectly simple to understand.

I think Kubernetes gets a bad rap out of ignorance. You can make it as complex as you want, but you can also keep things trivial and simple if that's what your aiming for.

Case in point, I operate a Kubernetes cluster with microk8s. I got my nodes up and running in a one-time setup, and after this all I need to do is kubectl apply -k to get my apps deployed and running. Each konfiguration script is trivial too. ingress, services, deployments. That's it. A docker compose script is far more complex and hard to maintain than that. Where's the complexity?

Honestly, have you ever gave kubernetes a try? If you did, what exactly did you tried to do? I bet that if you do an honest apples-to-apples comparison with any setup that you believe works, you'll notice that you're doing far more work to achieve the same result. This is a given as you're pointing out nomad of all things as something simple.

Western countries got ‘lobbying’

The term "lobbying" doesn't mean corruption. It means basically have meetings with stakeholders to discuss issues regarding policy and agenda.

If you hold a meeting with your local city council asking for a crosswalk, you're engaged in lobbying. If you chat with the local police chief asking for more patrols in some part or another of town, you're engaged in lobbying.

Now, lobbying might set the stage for corruption. If you're talking to your city council about the need for a crosswalk and you show a video of cars speeding by an intersection, that's ok. If instead you tell your city councilman that if he hires your construction company to build that crosswalk then you'll pay him a wad of cash, that's corruption.

Lobbying is not corruption. It's weird how the basis of any democratic system is attacked for being "corruption" to try to justify corruption in corrupt hellholes.

For Signal, no.

There is an argument to make about using custom versions of Signal that route their traffic through your own infrastructure.

This would count as France running their own service.

Given that Signal relies on centralized servers to route traffic, and if I'm not mistaken they use AWS in US instances, this means that your Signal traffic is being fed straight into the US security services' infrastructure. France might be a staunch ally of the US, but they do go through great lengths to preserve their independence.

I’m not a proponent of any backdoors like this.

I'm not sure you got the gist of what I said. The point I made was that if being the host nation of an organization meant that their government can add backdoors at will, using any foreign service would automatically mean you'd be snooped by external actors.

Regardless of where you stand on whether you want to add your own backdoor or not, by your own logic using a foreign service means your services are already compromised.

If that's the case, wouldn't it make sense to simply run your own stuff?

A far better reason not to use WhatsApp is that it is run by Facebook. It was also a primary vector for Pegasus.

Aren't you doubling down on the government of France's position?

I mean, the french minister did explicitly stated that "[you] cannot guarantee the security of conversations and information shared via them".

France wants backdoors into these apps, it’s not a lack of trust thing.

If it's trivial for a host nation to add backdoors to instant messaging services, you'd be agreeing with the government of France and you'd be pressing to migrate your communication out of the hand of third parties.

To start Europe should have secure phones made in EU.

Doesn't switching instant messaging services count as a start? Switching hardware is far harder than switching software.

Also, local messaging systems also determine where your traffic goes and who controls that data. If you have a french messaging service with data centers in france routing traffic between people in France, you are in a far better shape.

Yeah, unless I’m missing something the author would have the same outcome with regular pointers if he’d freed them at the same time (one at the end of the anon scope and one at the end of fun1).

That's basically it. The way the blogger wrote fun1 means the pointer is freed once the function exits, because they explicitly added the std::unique_ptr to take over its lifetime. Afterwards they are surprised by the fact that it really took over its lifetime.

The weird part is that the blogger had to go way out of its way to write that bug.

I almost can’t believe it’s legit, it seems like such a basic, fundamental misunderstanding of concepts it’s like chatGPT output.

I agree. It almost sounds like one of those coding exercises recruiters throw candidates in preliminary hiring rounds to weed out the bottom 5% that have no idea what they are doing.

"They say C++ is specified in an international standard, but there is behavior that's left undefined. Are they lazy, or did their printer ran out of ink?"

That’s awfully reductive.

It really isn't. Otherwise there would be programming languages out there that would make it impossible to write buggy code, and there is nothing of the sort.

Tools can absolutely vary in their qualities and in their risks / benefits.

You still get bugs. This isn't up for discussion. In fact, the only difference is that somehow you assert that C++ suffers from this issue but started to backpedal when any language other than C++ is brought into the picture. That hardly sounds like a personal assertion that's grounded and well founded.

You need to know what it does and what it doesn’t or you’ll be surprised.

I don't think that std::unique_ptr is shrouded in mystery: it's designed to be the unique handle of a raw pointer, and it frees the memory when it's lifetime ends. As it's designed to be the unique holder of a resource, it's implemented to disallow making copies. It might be implemented in clever ways, but a developer experience point of view it's quite straight to the point.

and a subtle typo

What example can you give to illustrate that claim?

or innocent assumption

That sounds like an euphemism for "I don't know what I'm doing, so I pin my mistakes on my tools".

can lead to catastrophic failures that might only surface in 0.0001% of the times that a certain line of code is run.

I struggle to tell if you are serious.