Supermariofan67
I think this will change. Nvidia hired devs on Nouveau, NVK is coming along, etc
Some of it probably comes from other companies that are unable or unwilling to relicense it even if Nvidia wanted to
A year ago, the majority of Lemmy was vehemently in support of banning porn
It is based on the assumption that every piece of code in the entire stack from the UEFI firmware to the operating system userspace is free of vulnerabilities
Lol that's hilarious. I laugh so much at the crazy mixing of units we use here in the US. Similarly, it's quite common to see metric and customary units in the same sentence, as in "add 1 tablespoon to 100 mL of water".
Looks like the birdie has escaped phoronix...
In the small chance that this comment is serious, Nvidia is found this because the corporate server-based customers need the ability to troubleshoot and debug the driver.
The actual trade secrets are being moved into the proprietary firmware blob and out of the driver.
Whenever I want to pirate something I just go straight to btdig. And if there's no torrent and I really need to search the web, I've had much better luck with Yandex. I figure they're more resistant to takedowns from western corporations
- The fact that you see adult women as little girls says more about you
- They literally don't exist. They're fictional characters.
Did you... watch the video? You act as if he's bashing the fediverse or isn't a strong supporter of it
The code probably used an if statement somewhere to throw an exception if some condition is incorrect, then called strerror(), which gets the status of the last syscall. But the error was probably a logical one in the application and had nothing to do with the last syscall. Or perhaps success of a syscall is itself an error condition. For example if a file already existing should be detected and cause a failure, calling stat() successfully would be an error
Highly doubt that would happen. If anything, the current court would the project 2025 censorship agenda and support the Protect Act provisions that were already (correctly) struck down in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (it was just that time's edition of the overbroad "protect the children!!!" bill that did some good and some bad; most of what remains today and hasn't been struck down is good though). ~~It's also not the law criminalizing CP so that could be where his argument might fail.~~ (nevermind; he's talking about the provision that extends the statute of limitations)