If anyone's looking to sandbox network, I've had good experience with pasta [1] networking. I make a pasta+bwrap sandbox and expose only specific services via local sockets to cross the boundary.
I wish I could remove the insert key, but unlike the caps-lock that no application rebinds, insert does get rebound. I wish there was an OS level control "pressing insert by accident should not turn on mangle-my-text-mode".
Games often bind skills or other game mechanics to the function keys.
Anecdotally, I switched from `ctrl+shift+i` to F12 for opening the web inspector due to many websites capturing that keybinding for their own purpose (claude and code editors) if I didn't have a function row I'd have to find an even more arcane hotkey.
They're just a nice set of purpose-undefined keys that you or the application can bind to useful functions.
MMORPGs and games that have many different mechanics might be more prone to it, versus first-person controlled games? In my experience its pretty common.
Most likely, I haven't played many MMOs. Having to go from WASD to the function row is pretty clumsy for me, especially when there's ~20 extra keys around WASD without having to move a hand.
Do you have a solution for auto-merging conflicting changes? Because I think that's the real difference, editing on a laptop and on a desktop before the sync can occur, can cause data-loss (for my potentially naive use of keepassxc anyway).
I've never seen this happen, because (as far as I can tell) all KeePassXC clients auto-save the file any time a change is made, and all the Nextcloud clients auto-sync as soon as the file changes. Keepass is also resilient to the underlying file changing while you have, say, the edit password dialog open.
If a conflict did happen though, newer versions of Nextcloud just keep both copies and alert you to resolve it. If I had to resolve this I'd probably try the built-in database merger first: https://keepassxc.org/docs/KeePassXC_UserGuide#_merging_data...
There are several factors at play making conflicts almost impossible:
- A central device can be immediately synced to. For Nextcloud, it could be a server, for direct synchronization that I use (Syncthing), my phone (almost always online) is the intermediate device for all.
- You are usually online when creating accounts/password, so an sync can happen directly after a change
- And finally: How often do you actually _create_ accounts rather than just read the database? And how often do you do it on two devices in quick succession?
Merge conflicts on NextCloud are terrible, but for a KeePass file, I don't think this comes up very much. My laptop syncs from Nextcloud whenever it's online, and my phone syncs whenever it opens or modifies the file. Nobody else is using my laptop or phone, and certainly not my keepass vault. I would probably have to go out of my way to use both my laptop and my phone offline and add/change passwords during that time in order to get a merge conflict.
How do you get data loss?keepassXC,DX saves a conflict copy and warns you. Anytime I've seen the warning over ~10 years it's been a non issue. Like I add an entry on PC, walk away from the 'save db' prompt for a day and then update something on my phone so I have 1 new account on both. I see the warning and so I have to hit one button to do the basic merge or whatever and it's done.
I think as compilers got smarter, UB changed somewhat in meaning. Originally the compilers didn't perform such complex analysis, and while invoking UB could break your program, it would still do something reasonable.
You see a reasoning here, basically when all those C compiler benchmarks started, vendors moved from what Frank Allen described, to anything goes to win SPEC something benchmarks.
"Oh, it was quite a while ago. I kind of stopped when C came out. That was a big blow. We were making so much good progress on optimizations and transformations. We were getting rid of just one nice problem after another. When C came out, at one of the SIGPLAN compiler conferences, there was a debate between Steve Johnson from Bell Labs, who was supporting C, and one of our people, Bill Harrison, who was working on a project that I had at that time supporting automatic optimization...The nubbin of the debate was Steve's defense of not having to build optimizers anymore because the programmer would take care of it. That it was really a programmer's issue.... Seibel: Do you think C is a reasonable language if they had restricted its use to operating-system kernels? Allen: Oh, yeah. That would have been fine. And, in fact, you need to have something like that, something where experts can really fine-tune without big bottlenecks because those are key problems to solve. By 1960, we had a long list of amazing languages: Lisp, APL, Fortran, COBOL, Algol 60. These are higher-level than C. We have seriously regressed, since C developed. C has destroyed our ability to advance the state of the art in automatic optimization, automatic parallelization, automatic mapping of a high-level language to the machine. This is one of the reasons compilers are ... basically not taught much anymore in the colleges and universities."
-- Fran Allen interview, Excerpted from: Peter Seibel. Coders at Work: Reflections on the Craft of Programming
As a counterexample, I've been seeing more "safety rejections" from Claude. Unlike search, being unable to ask _anything_ about botulinum, or details about the recent Copy Fail vulnerability (without giving my fingerprints to Anthropic to become a "verified security researcher") we're only just beginning to see the ways LLM can be used to distort information and its availability.
[1]: https://passt.top/passt/
reply