标签：#r

The GitHub Advisory Database is processing more vulnerability reports than ever before. Here's what's driving the surge, how we're responding, and how the community can help. The post Inside the Advisory Database and what happens when vulnerability volume breaks records appeared first on The GitHub Blog .

The Supreme Court's decision to limit geofence warrants is a win for privacy advocates, who called their use unconstitutional but sought an outright ban.

Interesting research on a new class of weak RSA keys: keys with lots of zeros. It turns out that these keys are out in the wild. The badkeys project is an open-source service that checks public keys for known vulnerabilities. While developing this tool, Hanno collected a massive number of real-world keys from public sources, including Certificate Transparency logs, internet-wide TLS and SSH scans, PGP keys, and many others. By searching this dataset for unexpectedly sparse RSA moduli, we uncovered a large number of keys in the wild with the patterns in Figure 1...

A heatwave, engine upgrades, plus power levels for the next two seasons.

WhatsApp username can be between 3 to 35 characters.

Even if you only use WhatsApp sometimes, you might want to snag your username now to stop giving out your phone number.

A new proposal would ban the sale of Americans' health and location information to data brokers - including information people reveal to an AI chatbot like ChatGPT or Claude. In the coming weeks, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Representative Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA) are planning to debut a new version of the Health and Location […]

WhatsApp username can be between 3 to 40 characters length

Dbrand announced Monday that it's refunding everyone who bought its Steam Machine Companion Cube, which it said it made "without a license from Valve." Dbrand announced the Portal-themed Steam Machine accessory in November and took preorders for it last Monday. But a few days later, the product had disappeared from the company's website and the […]

Most developers expect to go through multiple interview rounds, coding assessments, or take-home assignments before getting hired. That wasn't my experience. I ended up working with the YouTuber I had admired for years without an interview, without an exam, and without even sending a resume. Here's how it happened. It Started Long Before the Opportunity I started freelancing when I was in Class 9. At first, it wasn't about building a career. I simply enjoyed creating websites and wanted to gain experience while earning some money. Over the years, I worked with different clients, solved different problems, and learned something from every project. Those freelance gigs taught me much more than writing code—they taught me how to communicate with clients, deliver on time, and take ownership of my work. The Opportunity A few months ago, one of my favorite YouTubers posted in his WhatsApp community that he was looking for someone to build a website. I happened to be a member of that group. As soon as I saw the message, I reached out and told him I could build it. Instead of spending time wondering whether I was "good enough," I decided to let my work answer that question. Building It in Under 24 Hours Once I received the project, I focused entirely on delivering it as quickly as possible without compromising quality. I completed the website in less than 24 hours. After reviewing it, he requested a few modifications. I implemented them immediately and delivered the updated version. At that point, I assumed the project was finished. The Unexpected Offer A few days later, he contacted me again. He had another web application that had been stuck because a previous developer couldn't complete it. He asked if I could take over. That conversation eventually turned into a job offer. No coding interview. No aptitude test. No technical assessment. Just trust built through delivering one project well. What I Learned Looking back, I don't think I got the job because I replied quickly

Every Sanity marketing site ends up with a page builder. An array of sections, an insert menu, a render loop that maps block._type to a component. You've built it. I've built it. We've all built the same thing. And every one of them ships with the same bug. You add a new section. You wire it into the schema. You add a renderer. You add a component. You add the type. And then — because there are five places to touch and you're a human — you forget one. The section renders blank in production. Or it never shows up in the insert menu. Or it fetches no fields because you missed the GROQ projection, so it renders as nothing at all. No error. No red. Just a hole on the page where a section should be. The annoying part isn't the bug. It's that you'll hit it again on the next project, in exactly the same way, because you rewrote the whole thing from scratch — again. The section tax Here's what "add a section" actually costs in a typical Sanity + Next.js page builder: Schema — a new *Section object type, registered in your schema index. GROQ — a new conditional in the page-builder projection so the block's fields actually come down. Component — the React component that renders it. Renderer map — an entry mapping _type → component. Types — the block variant in whatever union your frontend renders. Miss #2 and the block arrives empty. Miss #4 and it silently skips. Miss #5 and TypeScript shrugs because your union is hand-maintained and now lies. Three different failure modes, all of them quiet, all of them "works on my machine until it doesn't." Now look at those five places and ask: which of them is actually unique to your site? The component is. It's welded to your design system — your spacing, your tokens, your brand. Nobody can reuse it and nobody should. The other four are plumbing . "Look up _type in a map, call the renderer, keep the map in sync with the schema and the query." That code is byte-for-byte the same idea on every project you've ever built. So why is it livi

This is the fourth post in Craft & Code , a short Friday series about what carpentry can teach us about AI, skill and the future of software. Last week I worried about where the next generation's judgement will come from. This week, why we may not notice it is missing until it is too late. My father built me shelves in an alcove when I was small, and I mentioned in the first post that they may still be there for eternity. The other side of that story is the one every household knows: the shelf that is not quite right. The one that sags under a row of books, or sits a degree off true so that anything round rolls gently to one end. You do not need to be a carpenter to see it. A bad joint, a door that will not close, a shelf that dips — the material tells on the maker, immediately and to everyone. That is the comforting version of the analogy, and the one I expected to write: carpentry is honest about its failures because they are visible, while software can look polished and be rotten underneath. A wonky shelf looks wonky; bad software looks finished. It is a tidy line, and there is real truth in it. But it is only half the truth, and the more interesting half should worry us — because the moment you go up from a shelf to a serious piece of engineering, the comfort falls away completely. Consider two of the most admired structures of the last century. The Tacoma Narrows Bridge was designed by one of the leading suspension-bridge engineers of his day: elegant, slender, celebrated. It opened in the summer of 1940 and tore itself apart in the wind that November, twisting like a ribbon because the design had not reckoned with how the deck would behave aerodynamically. Nobody had seen a wonky bridge; it looked magnificent. The flaw was real, fundamental, and invisible until the wind found it. The Citicorp Center in New York, finished in 1977, was a triumph of structural engineering, raised dramatically on great columns at the midpoints of its sides. Only after it was compl

Director Travis Knight is also the creative mind behind 2016's Oscar-nominated Kubo and the Two Strings .