stardreamer

No, the 2037 problem is fixing the Y2k38 problem in 2037.

Before that there's no problem :)

I'm not advocating that teenagers should save no money. I'm just saying you don't have to save "all" of it.

Good financial planning isn't just not spending every cent when you can, it's also figuring out how to get the most out of your money. There is plenty of expensive stuff that I've spent thousands of hours with, which makes them totally worth the investment. There's no way a teenager would be able to figure that out without some trial and error.

I'd say it's better to get that out of the way now than later. If you make a bad purchase decision as a teenager, at most you're short 200 dollars. Maybe that startup idea isn't exactly what you imagined it to be, but at least you figured that out now than after sinking 20k into MLMs.

As a counterargument: spend your money. 200 dollars means a lot more to a teenager than a college student (with an on-campus part time job), then when you find yourself at your first full time job you may sometimes be spending 200 dollars like pocket change.

As a result, you will most likely cherish what you buy now for 200 USD way more than what you can buy down the line. That console you need to save up 6 months for right now? It becomes a lot less sentimental when you can afford it every other month. So spend your money on something that you'd like right now. 200 dollars won't change your life in college much, but it can change your life significantly right now.

Thanks for the feedback! I'll be sure to use non-printing characters instead of emojis for my passwords! (They can't guess it if it's invisible right?)

In all seriousness, why are people so adverse to using password managers? People are plenty willing to use the browsers built-in "remind my password" instead of a proper password solution such as bitwarden... And they come up with such "hacks" just to avoid using a proper length password.

Having one program (process) talk to another is dangerous. Think of a stranger trying to come over to me and deliver a message. There's no way I can guarantee that he isn't planning to stab me as soon as he sees me.

That's why we have special mechanisms for programs talking to other programs. Instead of having the stranger deliver the message directly to me, our mutual friend Bob (IPC Library, binder in this case) acts as an intermediary. This way at least I can't be "directly" stabbed.

What's preventing the stranger from convincing Bob to stab me? Not much (except for Bob's own ethics/programming)

To work around this, we have designed programming languages (rust) that don't work if there's a possibility of it being corrupted (I would add "at least superficially", but that's not the main topic here). Bob was trained by the CIA in anti-brainwashing techniques. It's really hard to convince Bob to stab me. That's why it's such a big deal. We now have a way of delivering messages between two programs that is much safer than before.

The only problem is that the CIA anti-brainwashing techniques (rust) tend to make people slow. So we deliver messages less efficiently than before. Good news is in this case we managed to make Bob almost as fast as before, so we don't lose our own much while gaining additional security. The people who checked on Bob even made sure to have Bob do the exact same thing as before when delivering messages (using RB Trees), hence this evidence is most likely credible.

Can't comment much about the docker side since it's not something I'm familiar with.

For the kernel part, assuming what you're referring to as UUIDs is the pid namespace mechanism, I'm failing to see how that would add overhead with containers. The namespace lookups/permission checks are performed regardless of whether the process is in a container or not. There is no fast path for non-containerized processes. The worst overhead that this could add is probably one extra ptr chase in the namespace linked list.

Eat three elephants and one snake daily. If you're still getting stomachaches, call me.

Worked in IT, target disk mode is a life saver when you have to recover data from a laptop with a broken screen/keyboard/bad ribbon cable and don't want to take apart something held together by glue.

Reminds me of FFXI, where the devs considered Alt-Tabbing on PC cheating thus made it deliberately crash to desktop.

I mean they're not wrong...

This is why my next book will be titled "how to cook dinner without a compiler, GCC 4 to GCC 11 compatible!"

Yep it's Intel.

They said it up until their competitor started offering more than 4 cores as a standard.