0x0

And because the eminently recyclable aluminum cans are somehow not good enough.

I was thinking mowing at night is the worst time because the morning dew would promote mold growth while the blades of grass are most damaged. But I'm just making shit up.

The classical options are that the world will end in the future, is currently ending, or ended in the past. Today, I'm here to tell you that there is another option: the world never even existed. Poof!

I think the judge would know it when they see it and laugh them out of the court room.

This is like comparing paintings to the Mona Lisa. Shrek is the crowning achievement of our civilization.

Great question. I don't know.

I think most would agree though, that the absence of a good solution does not justify a poor solution.

I guess that anyone in the country who seeks out and obtains the illegal content is committing a crime, so the government could go after them through traditional means. (Although seriously, are we really going to punish regular people for accessing a social media site?)

Admittedly, banning an entire website at the ISP is far more effective. However, I'd argue it's effective in the same way that a cannonball is an effective flyswatter.

All countries have internet censorship.

Agreed.

If your issue is with what is being labeled illegal you need to focus on that.

My issue is not with any content being labeled illegal. I don't like the government enacting censorship by ordering ISPs to block certain traffic.

I think that Brazil is within their rights to seize property or assets of entities engaging in illegal activity.

It's the sort of asymmetric power that concerns me, because by ordering the ISPs around, they can block the entire country's access to information with the flick of a switch. I don't want my government getting too comfortable with this kind of power because I don't know who will wield it next year.

I think ISPs should be dumb pipes. They should not be responsible for censoring content. They shouldn't even know what they're transporting, ideally.

I feel pretty conflicted on this whole thing. Don't get me wrong, it's hilarious seeing Elon squirm, but it's disconcerting to see everyone cheering on government censorship of the internet.

This headline sounded familiar. The article's from 8 months ago, folks.

You know, the reason this happens is that you can ask your database to execute a string type, but languages usually don't distinguish between a static string and a dynamically constructed string.

Not to proselytize, but this is a place where rust's lifetime annotations can shine. The DB interface should take a &'static str( and a variable number of parameters to insert) so it can be certain that no untrusted user input has already been injected into the query string. Assuming all static data is trusted, the sql injection vulnerabilities just went poof.

Sadly, it looks like rusqlite's execute() takes a non-static str. I wonder why.

Understandable. I'm more confused why Bruce ripped off the original blog post.

Cool username, btw