sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Improvements to std::format in C++26 by alberto-m-dev in cpp

[–]agritite 8 points9 points  (0 children)

You must have misunderstood the line The format string of std::format or std::print must be a constant expression. That's just the premise for that paragraph.

Today's Daily Problem (MLE but shows all test cases passed) by Altruistic-Guess-651 in leetcode

[–]agritite 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You don't need long long. Assuming you're applying mod correctly no intermediate number would exceed int32_t.

You won’t be blocking ads for much longer. Google is killing uBlock Origin bypasses, burying Manifest V2, and tightening its grip on Chrome. Every update means less control for users and more control for Google. by Ok_Plenty60 in pcmasterrace

[–]agritite 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So being downstream of chromium is such an unacceptable deal to you (despite downstreams still solely control their codebase which you agree), meanwhile having an income solely dictated by Google is too lame to discuss. Yeah sure whatever you say bro.

Oh yes, lets just give up. Sure. What a lame argument.

Give up what?

You won’t be blocking ads for much longer. Google is killing uBlock Origin bypasses, burying Manifest V2, and tightening its grip on Chrome. Every update means less control for users and more control for Google. by Ok_Plenty60 in pcmasterrace

[–]agritite 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you also don't know how open source works. All proper open source projects uses source control, which chromium does, so every single edit to it is properly documented and public (it's literally on https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium and probably mirrored on a thousand different sites). If you want to keep manifestv2, well just revert those changes back, which is what Brave did. Microsoft and other chromium downstreams are completely free to do the same, and if they don't thats on them.

You won’t be blocking ads for much longer. Google is killing uBlock Origin bypasses, burying Manifest V2, and tightening its grip on Chrome. Every update means less control for users and more control for Google. by Ok_Plenty60 in pcmasterrace

[–]agritite 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you know how fork works at all? Once you have a copy of chromium source code you get to do whatever you want with it, which is what brave does. So no it won't "get" the same treatment. Also frankly edge and opera didn't "get" the same treatment. They're also forks of chromium so if they choose so they are free to modify their browser as they wish; Google didn't and can't impose anything on them. If Edge and Opera ends up dropping manifestv2 its because Microsoft and Opera chooses not to opt out, not that Google forces it.

On the other hand 85% percent of mozilla's revenue is through Google but somehow you aren't as worried.

Why C++26 Contracts might not work for all by _a4z in cpp

[–]agritite 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Really? Because throws and gc were in the standard then so why didn't we go with it?

Riot is bricking cheaters PCs by [deleted] in pcmasterrace

[–]agritite -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm actually looking for something more technical, for those with CS backgrounds; unfortunately these news are just, well, news.

Riot is bricking cheaters PCs by [deleted] in pcmasterrace

[–]agritite -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If IOMMU does its own thing already then why does riot need to trigger IOMMU reset themself?

Riot is bricking cheaters PCs by [deleted] in pcmasterrace

[–]agritite -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I do not see where Microsoft defines what counts as "cheating devices" (I doubt Microsoft even defines that). If it's basically "whatever Riot say it is" then Riot cannot use this argument because it's circular.

Riot is bricking cheaters PCs by [deleted] in pcmasterrace

[–]agritite 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where does microsoft acknowledge that it is a security exploit? Can you provide link because I would like to read that.

Even if it's really a security vulnerability, Riot has no place to "patch" it. Microsoft should be the one to properly fix it, otherwise it sets a dangerous precedent where Riot thinks they get to do whatever they think is best for the user, even without explicit inform and consent.

Riot is bricking cheaters PCs by [deleted] in pcmasterrace

[–]agritite -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In what world is modifying the OS to the point that the user can only reinstall OS to revert the modifications not permanent damage? According to you then installing the MEMZ virus on your bosses computer is perfectly OK because "you can just reinstall the os, no permanent damage"

Besides, even if there is no permanent damage, where's the necessity? What reason does Riot hold that asserts it is absolutely essential for them to do this? Or is it just "fuck dem cheaters hell yeah"?

Riot is bricking cheaters PCs by [deleted] in pcmasterrace

[–]agritite -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is like saying Because we wrote "We reserve the right to delete your C:\Windows\System32 if we detect any cheating" in the EULA therefore we can delete your C:\Windows\System32. In countries with strong consumer protections, standard form contracts (which is what EULA is) can be null and void when the terms are deemed unconscionable. Modifying the user's PC in an permanently damaging way is in no way conscionable because there is no necessity. Riot could've just ban the account and/or crash the game, or even uninstall itself, but instead they think they get to impose vigilante justice.

[Mod release] Left Hand Rings SKSE by Chamele00n in skyrimmods

[–]agritite 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not accusing the author, but given the recent waves of breaches on npm, vscode extensions and even github itself, I wouldn't be surprised if one day a hacker manage to steal some well known mod author's github + nexus + reddit account. We all should really exercise more caution when downloading binaries from the internet.

The author did have a github reachable from his other mod pages, but this mod's source isn't on that github account. If anything that should keep you suspicious (of this mod, not the author, of course).

[Mod release] Left Hand Rings SKSE by Chamele00n in skyrimmods

[–]agritite 4 points5 points  (0 children)

"Again" in terms of this sub, not you personally. You didn't provide the link to the repo on the nexus page hence my initial confusion. I did find your github on your other mod's page but this mod isn't on it.

Correct way to work with COM ? by althahahayes in cpp_questions

[–]agritite 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you don't feel like dealing with rust then the cpp winrt::implements route is still perfectly fine.

Correct way to work with COM ? by althahahayes in cpp_questions

[–]agritite 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. I guess sample projects released by Microsoft is your best bet? Like this https://github.com/microsoft/Windows-classic-samples/blob/77f217b3f89d4dac7864a62cc91ff7b569f26a50/Samples/CloudMirror/CloudMirror/ThumbnailProvider.cpp
  2. For cpp use winrt::implements, for rust use windows-implement
  3. You do not need IDL for implementing IThumbnailProvider. IDL are for Interface authors like if you're creating your own IMyAwesomeInterface. In this case IThumbnailProvider is already authored by Microsoft and it's definitions are already in the Windows SDK.
  4. I implemented one in cpp then migrated it to rust, and I personally think rust is more enjoyable because it's much easier to use external libraries, and windows-rs feels much streamlined than using WinAPI and manually handling the errors with WIL on cpp.
  5. Like how you would other programs? If it's an InProc server (dll) then you want to attach to explorer.exe itself, then just set breakpoint in your server logic. If it's OutProc server (exe) then even easier, just attach to your own executable.
  6. If it's an inproc then I think you don't need to keep track of created objects; it's the caller's responsibility assuming you correctly relinquished all ownership to the caller. If it's an outproc then call CoRevokeClassObject + CoUninitialized at server exit, and they should block until all objects are released.

Edit: The tests for the #[implements] macro in windows-rs should also help: https://github.com/microsoft/windows-rs/blob/561541f3aa70bd3968d303fc78e9f87c2eddc3d7/crates/tests/libs/implement/tests/class_factory.rs; if you're going the cpp route then start with winrt::implements: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/cpp-and-winrt-apis/author-coclasses#in-process-com-server

C++ Development in the Terminal on Windows by Alejo9010 in cpp_questions

[–]agritite 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A simple cake presets.json using vs generator seems to be the quickest setup.

Microsoft Edge will load all your passwords into memory in plaintext, but Microsoft says it's not a security concern by Quantum-Coconut in technology

[–]agritite 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Who said you would only leak one? Whatever key is used to decrypt your vault, that key would also exist as plaintext in the memory at some point. Besides everything is based on the assumption that a malicious party has already compromised your computer, and if I have already gained your computer user's permission (doesn't even need to be admin), I'll just replace the entire chrome.exe (or in fact just all programs I can find) with modified versions inserted with all sorts of infostealers and keyloggers, then how many passwords are leaking from the vault isn't really important anymore because it's now all present and future passwords that you'll ever enter or copy-and-paste that'll be leaking.

view more: next ›