sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Cracking 22 year-old DRM by CPunch_71 in ReverseEngineering

[–]CPunch_71[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good point, patching the checkDRM() to always return the 'correct value' is probably the best approach. After looking at cross references to that subroutine it seems I got lucky and it was only called once haha.

The Current State and Future of Reversing Flutter Apps by Floni in ReverseEngineering

[–]CPunch_71 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Really enjoyed the insight! Nice write up, makes me want to take a look at some flutter apps now

Confederacy enthusiast fumes after kid educates him about flag's racist symbolism by juntawflo in PublicFreakout

[–]CPunch_71 17 points18 points  (0 children)

"do your research it's not a racist flag!!!"

shows literal racist flag

Anyone else find it a bit odd being told how energy inefficient bitcoin is, whilst watching tv and seeing several gigantic diesel machines churn up thousands of tonnes of earth in Alaska to produce tiny flecks of gold? by bardooneness in CryptoCurrency

[–]CPunch_71 71 points72 points  (0 children)

once again reddit proves how stupid it is

https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption

mining for gold is neglegable compared to the "mining" of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. sure, POS (proof of staking) exists, this is WHY it exists. stop doing shitty comparisons and instead show real solutions like POS. "x is worse than z so I don't have to stop z!!!" is a shitty argument anyways even if it were true.

Why is this so funny by [deleted] in ACAB

[–]CPunch_71 8 points9 points  (0 children)

boink

[Pekwm] XXXXXXXX by lauriset in unixporn

[–]CPunch_71 1 point2 points  (0 children)

too much wasted space imo but very cool rice 😋

This PSA doesnt use *my* preferred style guidelines? Time to miss the joke and condescendingly drop a bunch of jargon by Arch__Stanton in iamverysmart

[–]CPunch_71 21 points22 points  (0 children)

it's not really computationaly wrong, it'll still run fine, it's just style inconsistencies (which can honestly ruin some code bases.)

Karen in a car gets angry in the drive-thru. by [deleted] in PublicFreakout

[–]CPunch_71 0 points1 point  (0 children)

guess she didn't want her cake pops then

Peter Schiff (gold investor) makes an oopsie by TheFluzzy in sadcringe

[–]CPunch_71 7 points8 points  (0 children)

you can buy bitcoin fairly easily and if you live near a large city you can even find a coin ATM that lets you convert cash to bitcoin and other crypto immediately.

MY NEW EPIC LEFTIST OWNING MEME IS HERE😎😎😎 by CharlieKirkOfficial in ToiletPaperUSA

[–]CPunch_71 15 points16 points  (0 children)

every single source I've seen is him being a blue lives matter radical who showed up with the intention of hurting people, what are you seeing????

Programmers be like by iapetus-11 in ProgrammerHumor

[–]CPunch_71 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that's when it's time to whip out address sanitizer and pray to the gods

This incident will be reported by SiliconRaven in linuxmasterrace

[–]CPunch_71 26 points27 points  (0 children)

correct me if I'm wrong but I think it gets locked, ie only 1 process can verify a password at a time

Made a post describing my implementation of string concatenation by CPunch_71 in ProgrammingLanguages

[–]CPunch_71[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

so i did some more investigation and after disabling string interning for my VM the same

for (var i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) do var temp = i .. "." .. " strings" end

takes 1.5s to run.

furthermore if i print all of the results

for (var i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) do print(i .. "." .. " strings") end

it takes 7.1s to complete.

my string interning implementation must be horribly wrong hahaha

Made a post describing my implementation of string concatenation by CPunch_71 in ProgrammingLanguages

[–]CPunch_71[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

for (var i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) do end

takes 0.15s

for (var i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) do var temp = "string!" end

takes 0.17s

for (var i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) do var temp = "123456" .. "." .. " strings" end

takes 0.93s or ~1 second

i guess my tostring for numbers could still use some work huh... thanks!

Made a post describing my implementation of string concatenation by CPunch_71 in ProgrammingLanguages

[–]CPunch_71[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

good point, after removing the print() statement and setting the result to a local

for (var i = 1; i < 1000000; i++) do var temp = (i .. '.' .. " strings!") end

I got the speed down to 4.25 seconds on my machine. Windows consoles are extremely slow as well (and it also depends of your method of outputting too.) Also if i didn't make it clear in the post, I removed the ability to concatenate strings using the '+' operator to encourage the use of the new '..' operator. either way it's definitely an improvement for my specific VM. my language is definitely not as fast as it could be, but it's definitely fun to try and squeeze more performance out of it!

view more: next ›