In BC, Canada, the recommendation is to take cover under a desk e.g.
My personal take is that if I have a chance to make it quickly out of a building I prefer to be out of it rather than having it collapse on me. It's one of those things where the recommendation probably is the right thing for the general population and all expected earthquakes but I'm optimizing for something else. You have 10-20 seconds realistically. But yes things falling off the walls and off buildings and anything that can fall on you is a risk. In my office or home e.g. I'm typically on the ground floor within seconds of an exit so my mental preparation is to avoid the building falling on me. Maybe it's the wrong calculus but hey...
In the Loma Prieta earthquake most of my coworkers fled the newly constructed office building. Dodged falling ceramic roofing tiles. And then ran across the parking lot to take safety under the power lines.
Training and advice is about the expected disaster, not necessarily the one you are in.
In 9/11, lots of people escaped the south tower using elevators, which is the opposite of what you're told to do. There are people who died because they chose to follow the stair route. But others died because they were trapped in elevators.
It sounds like they're talking about "GitHub Enterprise Cloud with Data Residency." This is a separate product to the standard "GitHub Enterprise Cloud" (including Enterprise Managed Users) which runs on normal github.com infrastructure.
If you have a Data Residency tenant, you access it through an endpoint like octocorp.ghe.com
GitHub seems to try to use specific language here to avoid this confusion, because they are quite different products, but it seem to me they were named confusingly in the first place...
It definitely is. You can use all sorts of vuln scanners to find vulns. Most codebases have vulns, and most vulns aren't even reachable. The hard part is chaining them together in a fire-and-forget exploit that gets you what you want from the target.
Confusingly, Docker now has a product called "Docker Sandboxes" [1] which claims to use "microVMs" for sandboxing (separate VM per "agent"), so it's unclear to me if those rely on the same trust boundaries that traditional docker containers do (namespaces, seccomp, capabilities, etc), or if they expect the VM to be the trust boundary.
> the word `self` is not special in any way (it's just convention - you can call the first param to a method anything you want).
The name `self` is a convention, yes, but interestingly in python methods the first parameter is special beyond the standard "bound method" stuff. See for example PEP 367 (New Super) for how `super()` resolution works (TL;DR the super function is a special builtin that generates extra code referencing the first parameter and the lexically defining class)
> In addition, you may not use any of the Marks as a syllable in a new word or as part of a portmanteau (e.g., "Gitalicious", "Gitpedia") used as a mark for a third-party product or service. For the avoidance of doubt, this provision applies even to third-party marks that use the Marks as a syllable or as part of a portmanteau to refer to a product or service's use of Git code.
> Please be aware that GitHub and GitLab are exceptions to this Policy because they are subject to explicit licensing arrangements that pre-date, and thus take precedence, over this Policy.
That seems pretty normal to me. Try this thought experiment. Suppose I make an accessory that adds an ironing board to the back of F150 trucks[1] and I call my company “Fordboard”? Do you think that portmanteau is a trademark violation or not? I think Ford probably would fight and win against me if I did such a thing, in particular because I am using the registered mark (Ford) to refer to the actual thing so I can’t pretend that’s just a coincidence. That is also the case here with gitclassic. If I called my guitar shop that I might have more of a leg to stand on.
Well you aren't referring to a truck or even a vehicle. However I agree that your example product is intimately related to the trademarked item just as it is in this case. That's exactly why I'm wondering about precedent. It seems overly broad to me, a layman, but could well be the established status quo.
I would naively expect it to depend on whether the mark could reasonably be confused by a customer with the name in question. To that end fordboard and gitclassic seem problematic since they read like two separate words, one of which is the protected mark. In contrast, something like gitea seems like it ought to be in the clear - no one is ever going to think "git [space] ea huh wonder what ea by git is". (Ford should totally release a vehicle under the name Board that would be hilarious.)
> it is better when there is an overlap in the distinctive sound of the two words.
From the article you linked - this matches my intuition and is largely why I feel like gitea ought to be in the clear. Unfortunately it seems to be about trademarking portmanteaus as opposed to the creation of portmanteaus using one or more trademarks. (More is better - my next terrible idea is gitzurite.)
If they had developed a technique to get a modern C++ compiler and rustc to generate exactly the same output for any program (even a trivial one) I think that would be huge news and I would love to see all the linker hacking that would involve.
Last time I used them - Ghidra, and to some extent IDA, had UXes that were very difficult for new users to pick up and frequently deviate from standard expectations for modern desktop apps because they have two decades of baggage. In contrast binary ninja is very easy to explore and has many fewer surprises.
Or is that only in places with certain building codes?
reply