I didn’t watch the video – and YT isn’t letting me speed-read a transcript? – but generally speaking, if you have a need for memory that isn’t backed by the filesystem, and you’re writing in C, just use malloc. It’s designed for that purpose, although malloc might very well be calling to mmap to obtain an anonymous mapping under the hood. Even if you’re going to hold on to memory for the entire lifetime of a program, still use malloc in C.

If your application does need some filesystem backing, or if you’re allocating enough memory that hugepages might be reasonable, then that’s when you’d want to use mmap.

Private party sales of cars in the USA use cash, yes. A fairly safe way to do this for a car is to do the sale in the lobby of the seller’s bank or credit union. In specific detail, the buyer arrives and inspects the car to their satisfaction, they fill in most of the vehicle title transfer form but withhold the signature, then they go to the teller where the buyer produces the cash, the teller counts the funds and deposits it to the seller’s account, and finally the buyer and seller sign the title transfer.

In this way, the buyer’s risk is minimized (they’re meeting in a quasi public place with cameras, so gunpoint robbery would be unlikely) and the seller’s risk is minimized (they don’t even have to handle or count the cash, so a bad buyer can’t even rob them after the sale).

Not sure if this would be applicable to OP’s situation, but it might be adaptable if the seller’s bank is nearby and each party makes their own way to the bank to complete the sale, after inspecting the object.

Note: if instead of cash, the buyer pays with an official or cashier’s check, then this whole procedure is still valid because the seller doesn’t have to deal with the risk of a bad check: their bank has procedures to verify on-the-spot the funds on an official or cashier’s check issued by another institution. For a personal check though, such checks have a TOCTTOU problem, so sellers should not accept such checks for the sale.

The CA cannot decypt: they don’t have the secret key which only the server has. When requesting a new certificate from the CA, the server generated a secret key (aka private key) and then generated a derived public key that goes into a Certificate Signing Request (CSR). The CSR is what the CA receives, not the secret key, and then the CA returns the certificate file to the server, which has been endorsed by the CA and thus trusted by the user base.

Phrased another way, a certificate is the instrument that confirms that a purported public key can in-fact be safely used, and that no MITM attack is happening (assuming you trust the CA that signed the cert). But once you’ve confirmed the public key, the rest of the cryptography is public key cryptography, meaning the secrecy of the secret key is the whole game.

I’m deeply skeptical. If the whole premise is that natural language (which is how prompts to AI generation are given) is insufficiently precise to constrain output, and that formal specification is precise enough, then why are we bothering to use natural language generation? If this works as stated, then it’s a tactic admission that the thing being checked is inherently flawed. Why not just use the formal specification to generate code then?

I suspect that two things are true: natural language is inherently insufficiently precise for nontrivial code generation, and also that formal specification is not broad enough to describe all the code which is being generated today using AI/LLMs.

Reliability of generated output was never an engineered goal for LLMs, and no amount of “reasoning by Lego” can fully compensate for this no matter how complex the mitigations in post. It’s the same reason why safety (under any definition) cannot be “bolted on” to an LLM after the fact.

The 100 users for the Community edition is more of a suggestion and is not a hard cap, according to this answer: https://github.com/element-hq/ess-helm/issues/1027

In a nutshell, an Australian anti-porn group put pressure on the credit card networks Visa and MasterCard, which process the grand majority of card payments worldwide, for both credit and debit cards.

https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/08/04/visa-mastercard-adult-purchases/

What remains unclear to me is why a somewhat obscure lobbying group was able to bring two American multinationals to heel. But in any case, I am of the opinion that this group sits well within the range of right wing reactionary, in spite of dressing itself up in the cloak of feminism. The group’s Wikipedia page lists the founder as a conservative and anti-abortion activist.

As usual, Wilhoit’s Law is instructive: this despicable group seeks to denigrate sex work, depictions of sex, and the legal market for sex art and anything arbitrarily similar, by denying this group of people from the financial system and from earning an income, and then leave them without any support or even a suggestion as to what these people should do instead. This is the “bind but does not protect” part of Wilhoit’s Law. No different than American conservatives and TERFs that try to drive a wedge to isolate trans people, this group targets sex workers and they cannot be allowed to continue unabated.

The legal solutions are as straightforward as they seem: require that interstate financial services can only charge a fee if transactions are routed and processed neutrally. The economic solution would be the expansion of existing national payment clearing networks (ie ACH in the USA) to also process card payments as an alternative to the duopoly.