You brought it up, you specify where it doesn't work.

Netflix doesn't serve maximum res for Linux and Firefox due to DRM related reasons. Chrome on Linux usually resolves or at least amends the issue.

Yes, but: "This add-on is not actively monitored for security by Mozilla. Make sure you trust it before installing."

Most of the extensions for Firefox say that. For some reason even 7TV has that badge.

for good reason. it's a serious security risk.

Check the code with AI?

All arbitrary Javascript is a "serious security risk" if you're reductive enough.

This is a 5 minute search compared to your zero evidence.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opinion/leonh...

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-racism-election-...

https://www.npr.org/2026/03/27/nx-s1-5763863/hegseth-soldier...

This is 2 minutes of reading that NY Times piece:

- "A former hotel executive said Trump criticized a black accountant" OK, hearsay but OK.

- Trump doesn't like crime? Associating that with race makes the NY Times seem very racist.

- “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” - Islam isn't a race.

- Haiti is a shithole. It's not polite to say, but that's why people want to leave. The statement that Haiti isn't desirable has nothing to do with race.

- He claimed that the same caravan included “criminals and unknown Middle Easterners.” - and? Caravans from Mexico included a lot of people from unknown countries including some whose governments expouse wanting to kill Americans.

> C adopts defer

C will almost certainly adopt defer in the next revision standard. C++ (via RAII + scoped classes) already effectively has defer.

But the fact that it's unsafe means it's effectively unadoptable, no reason not to use C inplace of it.

This is your first comment in six years, what is amazing about it?

Why would that be a problem in rust?

Imagine this fairly basic situation: you have a button object. When clicked, it triggers a closure (callback). And that closure needs to change the button's text to e.g. "Clicked!".

To do this in Rust, the closure needs a mutable reference to the button. However, the GUI event loop also needs a reference to the button to draw it on the screen. In Rust, you can have many immutable references, __or__ exactly one mutable reference, but never both at the same time. Since the GUI framework holds the button, it won't let your closure mutably borrow it at the same time.

Do you find anything "bad" about this code solving the problem?

    use std::rc::Rc;
    use std::cell::RefCell;
    
    struct Button {
        text: String,
        on_click: Option<Rc<dyn Fn()>>,
    }
    
    impl Button {
        fn new(text: &str) -> Self {
            Button { text: text.to_string(), on_click: None }
        }
        fn draw(&self) { println!("[Button: \"{}\"]", self.text); }
        fn fire_click(button: &Rc<RefCell<Button>>) {
            let cb = button.borrow().on_click.clone();
            if let Some(cb) = cb {
                cb();
            }
        }
    }
    
    fn main() {
        let button = Rc::new(RefCell::new(Button::new("Click me")));
        let cb_handle = Rc::clone(&button);
    
        button.borrow_mut().on_click = Some(Rc::new(move || {
            cb_handle.borrow_mut().text = "Clicked!".to_string();
        }));
    
        button.borrow().draw();
        Button::fire_click(&button);
        button.borrow().draw();
    }

Prints:

  [Button: "Click me"]
  [Button: "Clicked!"]

Why would they need them at the same time? The overall state will contain the button.

Many interactive programs can be GetInput(); ChangeState(); DrawState();

Why wouldn't their lifetimes be isolated?

Also the drawing doesn't need a mutable reference.

I think it is absolutely true, because adding features to an experimental language that has no tools or ecosystem surrounding it does nothing and people know that.

Niche experiments having features doesn't accomplish anything, but adding just one more feature to C seems plausible.

With C++ people could point people to another production ready language compatible with C that people could use, so there was somewhere they could do and an example of the feature working instead of someone promising silver bullets in theory.

> adding just one more feature to C seems plausible

I thought it would be a couple months to add C++ to my C compiler. 10 years later...

This comment didn't explain the name or how it works.

It's just a play on words, something lightweight drifts in the wind rather than gliding on a wing. It's really not all that deep.

How does that relate to the mechanics of the algorithm?

Does quicksort explain the mechanics of the algorithm?

No, but it was also named in the 60s. If someone was three comments deep replying to people asking about it, at some point someone would say "it's quick and in place because it does a recursive partition".

Make a new certificate, let crawlers blast you and add those IPs to a block list.

these old network security techniques don't really work anymore. the common bots are at known IP ranges, the problem bots are all on datacenter + residential proxies.

Why would blocking those be a problem?

because you are blocking all of Comcast, Verizon, T-Mobile, British Telecom, ....

at the end you have blocked every network with human visitors and only datacenter IPs can access your site.

The proxies rotate IP every day, so you either have ineffective blocking or you block the whole network.

My site is not for americans so I don't care about blocking american isps

You think they only use American networks?

there are 150M+ of them and you'll be taking out a lot of human users with it

modern blocking is behaviour / heuristic based

There are 150 million bots all using residential IP addresses?

In my experience, these aren't the crawlers from legit companies, so they have infinite IPs via residential botnets/proxies.

edit: 'nikcub beat me to it by 30 seconds :)

"AI makes real world obsolete." I think that's enough hacker news for today.