All I can find is anonymous stuff on a website called http://techrights.org/ which has a series of articles trying to in some way associate Nat with [redacted]'s domestic violence.
The "best friend" claim seems to have started with a weird "teaser" post on techrights.org wherein an anonymous source claims that "many others" can confirm that [redacted] was close to Nat. That of course doesn't even come close to establishing that either of them considers the other their "best friend", if it's trustworthy to begin with.
Then techrights.org cites their own teaser in other posts as saying that [redacted] claims Nat is his best friend (not true, or at least not supported by the source).
Now you are, I guess, using that as your basis to claim that they ARE in fact best friends.
I realise it's possible you're entirely honest and have sources I don't, but this looks like a pretty cynical smear job to me, especially given that none of the sources I've managed to find asserting that the two were close date from before this domestic abuse case. I don't have any insider knowledge, but the superficial appearance of all this is that a handful of activists with something against Nat have cooked up this "best friend" narrative for some reason, gradually escalating the claim each time they cite each other, and ultimately it all hinges on an anonymous source saying that other anonymous sources say that the two were close once.
Nat and [name redacted] were always exceptionally close, which I always found confusing. [name redacted] was intense, passionate, charismatic, but also had troubled and troubling relationships with people, _particularly_ women. [name redacted] was, if I remember correctly, let go from Ximian when he failed to arrive to work every day by noon for one week straight (we lived a 5 to 10 minute walk from the office).
Even after [name redacted] was let go, he and Nat remained fast friends.
Not really. I am about to read the article, but it sounds like return-oriented programming[1] chaining "gadgets" that are small bits of existing code that you can re-purpose into executing arbitrary code by manipulating the stack. Extremely common exploitation technique, even if not trivial. Who said an exploit or RCE was trivial to exploit?
Edit: I was a bit quick to dismiss. The technique is certainly interesting, although the article doesn't go into the details of how the control flow is handled and where that register is stored. However, I'd like to point out that ROP is quite complex on its own, as it's kind of like using a computer with an arbitrary instruction set that you have to combine to create higher-level functions, hence my original confusion.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return-oriented_programming
And frankly, a benevolent dictatorship is basically the best government you can have, as long as you're part of the "in-group" who doesn't push boundaries, doesn't cause trouble, and supports the supreme ruler, Kim jon... cough* Apple.
---
The problem is that no matter how good the dictatorship might be today, it will eventually bite you. You will either develop a need that isn't addressed, or they will change the rules so you are no longer able to satisfy an existing need.
We're seeing this now with Google - Their motto was literally "don't be evil" for a long time. And during that golden period their users loved them. But as Google has shifted from "don't be evil" to "Make lots of money" people are starting to shift away.
Apple is still in the golden phase, but I'm not really convinced they're going to be there much longer.
> "Don't be evil" is a phrase used in Google's corporate code of conduct, which it also formerly preceded as a motto.
> Following Google's corporate restructuring under the conglomerate Alphabet Inc. in October 2015, Alphabet took "Do the right thing" as its motto, also forming the opening of its corporate code of conduct.[1][2][3][4][5] The original motto was retained in Google's code of conduct, now a subsidiary of Alphabet. In April 2018, the motto was removed from the code of conduct's preface and retained in its last sentence.[6]
I know saying Google removed Don't Be Evil is something of a trope, but the truth is a little more complicated. And, of course, the presence or absence of this phrase has no necessary bearing on the degree to which they are perceived as evil or not!
* Split version number into version numbers separated by non-alphanumeric components (e.g., 3.10.2 becomes (3,10,2) and 3.2 becomes (3,2)).
* Compare two versions item by item numerically (in this case, 3==3 but 10 > 2 so 3.10.2 is newer than 3.2).
This is a massive oversimplification, and if you're curious you can read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Archive:Tools/RPM/VersionComp... for the gory details.
Source: long ago I worked at a company named Ximian that shipped a software update product that worked on systems using both RPM and dpkg, and I had to deeply understand this problem space.
Apple Maps is a lot cleaner but the only thing missing was the quality of the actual maps. Hopefully that has changed now.
If the BFR (the rocket behind the starship) is successful then yes it could mean the ability to launch very large telescopes in to space. The scientific community would be very exited about this possibility. However, this doesn't necessarily make it very low cost. One launch of the BFR would still likely be much more than an a Falcon Heavy launch.
> if you are building a radio telescope in space, could you just use a thin foil that folds out like origami for the reflector?
Yes! This technology already exists and it is really pretty amazing to see in action. Right now most of them are used on communications satellites or for synthetic aperture radar satellites. See the videos below:
Animation of the radar antenna on SMAP:
https://smap.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/83/smap-antenna-deployme...
Actual video of a large communcations antenna (12m diameter) being deployed. Skip ahead to ~2:15 for the actual unfurling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mFnNDzxKFk&feature=emb_titl...
BFR isn't a name that's still in use. Poster you're responding to was correct in calling it Starship: "SpaceX's Starship spacecraft and Super Heavy rocket (collectively referred to as Starship)" (from https://www.spacex.com/starship).
Starship projects to be significantly less expensive than Falcon Heavy _or_ Falcon 9. With total reusability of both stages and a construction built toward little to no refurbish or rehab, the cost per launch is nearly completely dictated (order of magnitude) by fuel costs, and project to be ~$2 million. This is an order of magnitude reduction in $/kg over the Falcon 9.
https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-flight-passenger-cost-...
What. The. Fuck.
First, they took our physical games and media away. Then they made us subscribe. Now they take away everything when we stop paying for our subscriptions? I can't even conceive of what the next step will be -- will they charge us for having memories of their IP?
We need to reduce copyright terms and kill this cancer of IP hoarding. The rent-seekers are taking ownership away.
Rejection Sensitivity and Emotional Disregulation
I have always been paralyzed by being afraid of failure (rejection), and that has kept me from pursuing a lot of things in the past
And I've always been prone to anger outbursts, even over seemingly trivial silly things. It has damaged so many of my relationships and overall left me pretty lonely throughout my life. And when the dust settles I'm sitting there thinking "Why was I so angry about that thing. I don't even care that much about it"
My ADHD diagnosis and medication, starting in my early 30s, has almost entirely turned my life around
I'm sure that people like the root of this thread mean well, but at the same time that attitude is exactly what kept me from receiving treatment or care when I was younger.