Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

BROP is such a clean ASLR bypass. After brute-forcing the stack canary, the attacker starts overwriting the return address with guesses. Most guessed addresses jump into garbage or non-executable memory. The child process segfaults, and the socket closes. But occasionally, a guessed return address lands in real code that...

25,142 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Survival instinct unfolding in the rawest form. A wolf lunges straight at a deer standing near a waterhole. Both plunge into the shallow water, mud and earth exploding around them. The deer fights to keep its footing, thrashing to break free. The wolf does not let go, using the water itself to pin its prey. This is not a staged scene. This is survival instinct operating at its most primitive level. For the deer, water is not a death trap. It is a tactic. When pursued, many deer species instinctively run toward lakes, rivers, or shallow pools. On land, the wolf holds an overwhelming advantage in speed and endurance. In the water, that advantage is leveled. The deer can kick, twist, or simply throw its attacker off balance in the mud. Diving into the water is not panic. It is a response refined over millions of years: change the battlefield to buy a few more seconds of life — sometimes enough to escape. The wolf is the opposite. It does not hesitate to follow into the water. The hunting instinct here is not merely hunger. It is instant risk calculation. Water slows the prey, limiting the deer’s ability to accelerate or change direction. The wolf accepts the chance of being kicked, losing power, even being driven down into the mud, as long as its jaws remain locked on the opponent’s body. The decision to follow is not impulsive. It is the instinct of a predator: once contact is made, you do not let go. Both are simply doing what they were built to do. The deer is not “brave.” The wolf is not “cruel.” They are executing biological programs written into their genes. Fight-or-flight in the prey becomes “run into the water.” Persistence in the predator becomes “do not release, even when the terrain turns against you.” The final outcome of this struggle matters less than the process itself: each is putting everything it has into not going extinct in that exact moment.

Nature 🦜and Music 🎶

37,873 Aufrufe • vor 18 Tagen

HE MAKES MONEY IN REAL ESTATE WITHOUT BUYING, SELLING, OR EVEN SEEING A SINGLE HOUSE. HERE'S THE EXACT SETUP He never owns a property. He takes a single listing, turns it into a polished 30-second video, and sells that to the agent who posted it. Realtors need video for their feeds and almost none of them can make it. He sits in the middle and builds the whole thing once as a skill that runs on command Here is the exact process: 1. Pull the listing. Go to Zillow, open any listing, download the high-res images, and grab the property info. That is your raw material 2. Turn photos into video with Google Veo. Get a Google API key for Veo, the image-to-video model. It takes the listing photos and animates them into clean 30-second footage. This is the best one out right now 3. Add the voice with ElevenLabs. Get an ElevenLabs API key. Feed it the listing details and it returns a voiceover that sounds like a real human, not a robot. Lay it over the video with the text on screen 4. Send it with AgentMail. Get an AgentMail key so the system can send the finished email out on its own Then you wire it into one skill. Scrape the listing, send images to Veo, add the ElevenLabs voiceover and on-screen text, then send the email. Feed it each key one at a time and have it build each step Who you sell to: Pull realtors off Zillow and Realtor com whose listings have flat photos and zero video. That gap is your pitch. Send a free sample made from their own listing first, then charge a monthly rate for ongoing clips. One agent with ten listings is a recurring client, fully online Bookmark this

Yarchi

106,174 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

i watched gemma 4 12b build something genuinely impressive today, and then loop itself to death right in front of me. the full run is in the video, sped up but completely uncut, watch it to the end and you will catch the exact moment it stops building and starts looping right in the middle of the work. the task was clean, build a single file gravity simulator, n-body physics, orbits, collisions, running locally on one 3090 through an agent. and for ten minutes it was a joy to watch. it reached for a symplectic integrator on its own, the correct one, the kind that keeps orbits stable instead of spiralling out. real gravity with softening, proper orbital velocities, momentum conserved on collision. the physics was right. the thing actually worked. then on the very last step, writing a few tests to prove its own code, it fell into a loop. not a crash, a loop. it started repeating itself and would not stop. ten more minutes, thirty four thousand tokens into a single answer, the same fragments over and over, until i killed it myself. so it's not that gemma can't code. it did the hard part beautifully. it cannot finish. it cannot hold a long task together without unravelling, and finishing is the entire job in agentic work. here's the part that stings. i run this exact task, same harness, same card, on the chinese open models, qwen especially, and i never see this. they build it, they test it, they stop. every single time. google has the raw capability, you can see it sitting right there in the code, and then the model loops itself to death on a task a 27b from alibaba finishes clean. open weights, apache 2.0, so much to love on paper. i just need it to know when to stop talking.

Sudo su

39,719 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

2 Minutes before the launch of the Public sale !!! Remember: FCFS Here is a little tutorial to guide you: Remember the only website you have to use to participate to the public sale today is : How will it work ? 1⃣Go to : And click on "Invest in Elys Network" 2⃣You will then see the different whitelists : 30% / 15% / public sale choose the one available to you, if you are whitelisted for the 30% you'll be able to take the 30% deal. 3⃣Once this is done, put in the amount you want to invest, make sure you've checked all the information, accept all the conditions and click Confirm Investment. 4⃣Now you will see a new page on which you will asked to submit your cosmos wallet. Do the process, create your 2FA and then copy / Pasta your cosmos address (make sure that your address is starting with Cosmos and take the time to verify it) you can find your address on keplr. 5⃣After that you will have to do your investment for that click on "Complete paiement" make sure that the chain you choose is the one you want to use (click on edit if it's not the case) and Copy the address below. 6⃣Go on your Metamask / Rabby / Phantom wallet and use the send function to send your paiement to republic. You can find also a little tutorial for Rabby and Metamask at the end of the video In every step of the process make sure that : ◾️ You are using the right cosmos address, the one you want to use on mainnet. ◾️ You are using the right address to send the funds to Republic Here is a little video to guide you if you need help. Also if you need more guidance please come to us on discord or here on X and we will help you !

Elys Network

25,378 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

This scene always makes me think about what markets do once a simple asset story is no longer enough. At first people buy the thing itself. Then, at some point, that stops being exciting enough. So the market starts building layers around it. A structure. A wrapper. A more financial version of the same idea. That is why MSTR comes to mind for me here. Not because it is the same as a synthetic CDO. It obviously is not. But because the instinct feels familiar. If you believe in Bitcoin, the clean path is simple. You buy Bitcoin. If you want a more traditional route, you buy the ETF. That should be enough. But MSTR is something else entirely. It is Bitcoin, turned into a corporate vehicle, then turned into a capital markets machine, then turned into a narrative people are willing to value differently from the asset underneath it. And that is where it starts feeling less like pure exposure and more like financial engineering built around exposure. We have seen this movie before in different forms. Markets love taking a real asset, wrapping it in a new story, and then assigning the wrapper a value that starts drifting away from the thing it actually holds. As long as that premium stays alive, the machine keeps working. More demand for the structure. More capital raised. More accumulation. Bigger story. More believers. On the way up, it all looks brilliant. That is always the seductive part. In strong markets, even very simple reflexive loops can look like genius. The real question only shows up later, when the mood changes and people start asking whether the value was in the underlying asset all along, or in the extra meaning the market temporarily assigned to the structure built around it. That is why I find this clip so relevant. It is not just a reminder of 2008. It is a reminder of a deeper market habit. People rarely stop at owning the thing. They almost always find a way to build another layer on top of it. And to me, that is the more interesting question around MSTR. Not how much more Bitcoin it can buy. But how long the market will keep rewarding the wrapper more than the thing inside it.

Mercek

14,644 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Christina Aguilera Didn’t Recreate the ’40s. She Made It Dance. “Candyman” sounds like the 1940s. But Christina Aguilera makes it feel more alive than most pop videos from 2006. That sentence alone should start an argument. Before anyone brings up Back to Basics, Linda Perry, or the Billboard chart, the video drops you into another decade: sailor hats, pin-up curls, a hangar full of soldiers, swing dancers cutting the floor. Then Christina appears not as one star, but as three — a wartime trio moving like The Andrews Sisters walked onto a twenty-first-century set and refused to behave like a tribute act. It does not look like a normal mid-2000s clip. It looks like a musical that escaped its own era. The sound follows the pictures. The song borrows swing, close harmonies in the spirit of “Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy,” blues phrasing, and a Marines cadence that gives the track its barked pulse. Those ingredients could have produced a costume replica. They didn’t. Christina never vanishes into the period. The voice is too large, too elastic, too modern. She is not playing a 1940s singer. She is a 2006 pop star walking into the 1940s and turning the room up. That is the real trick. Plenty of artists borrow the past. Very few make the past keep up with them. Watch the dancing and the argument gets sharper. Benji Schwimmer is not a cameo. The swing steps, the group formations, the three Christinas trading lines — the video treats rhythm as something you should be able to see. You don’t just hear “Candyman.” You can almost watch the beat move from a jukebox to a row of soldiers to a girl in a sailor hat who will not stand still. Which raises the question fans still dodge: if the idea, the performance, and the world-building were this strong, why did it stall at No. 25 on the Billboard Hot 100? It reached No. 17 in the UK and No. 9 in Canada. Catchy enough. Stylish enough. Distinct enough. And still treated like a clever album cut instead of a defining hit. Maybe that is why the video aged better than the chart position. It is not cozy nostalgia. It is nostalgia used as a playground. The 1940s supply the silhouette. Christina supplies the voltage. The past becomes clothing, not a museum. So here is the comment section question, and it is not rhetorical. Was “Candyman” Christina playing dress-up with history — or one of the smartest pop videos of the 2000s, hiding in plain sight because it refused to look like everything else that year? And if you had to choose: the trio in white uniforms, the diner stools, or the sailor-and-soldiers finale — which version of Christina actually won?

Music over time🎻

15,212 Aufrufe • vor 14 Tagen

Parrots care for their chicks in a remarkable way, you know. They do not spoon-feed them. They also have no mammary glands the way mammals do. And yet a chick still grows from a naked, blind, soft-beaked creature into a bird that can fly, mimic, and live a very long life. The secret lies in an organ that seems, at first, to be nothing more than a food pouch: the crop at the base of the neck. A newly hatched parrot belongs to the group of helpless young. It cannot keep itself warm, cannot find food, and certainly cannot crack a seed. If the parents merely brought whole seeds back to the nest, the chick would starve before their eyes. Evolution chose another path: the parents eat first, process the food inside their own bodies, and then regurgitate it. The process begins away from the nest. The father, and later the mother as well, searches for seeds, fruit, flowers, and sometimes insects. The food is swallowed into the crop, an elastic muscular sac in the esophagus. There, saliva, mucus, and body heat turn hard seeds into a warm, mash-like mixture. Cells lining the crop also slough off and mix into the food, adding a thick substance rich in protein and fat, rather like the “crop milk” of pigeons. It is not milk in the mammalian sense, but it is enough for a still-developing digestive system to absorb. Back at the nest, the scene changes completely. The chicks stretch their necks, gape, and call without pause. A parent locks its beak into the chick’s mouth in a crosswise grip, then contracts the crop in rhythm. Food is pumped in bursts. The chick answers with a pumping reflex, opening its throat at the right moment to swallow and closing the glottis so it does not choke. The motion looks rough, but it is extremely precise. This is not vomiting. Vomiting forces stomach contents outward without control. Regurgitation delivers a prepared portion, aimed and timed. In the first days, the work is clearly divided. The mother hardly leaves the nest because she must brood. The father forages, returns, and feeds the mother; she then feeds the chicks. Once the young can regulate their own temperature, both parents go out to forage and both feed the chicks directly. Each return to the nest is not a ceremony. It is a work shift, repeated through the day and, in the earliest stage, sometimes through the night. This way of feeding also explains why parrots lay so few eggs. A clutch is usually only a few. The eggs hatch on different days, so one nest always holds larger chicks with wider gapes. The first-hatched are easily favored. In some species, such as macaws, if a youngest chick hatches several days too late, the parents may feed it less, or even abandon it. That is the cold side of an expensive strategy: invest heavily in each individual, rather than spread care evenly across the brood. As the chicks grow, the meals change. The thick mash of the first days becomes coarser, with pieces of fruit and softened seeds. Near weaning, the parents deliberately space out the feedings. They do not indulge. They push the young to eat on their own, to fly, and to recognize what can be eaten in the wild. This stage lasts weeks to months, depending on the species. Large parrots may still be guided long after they have left the nest.

Nature 🦜and Music 🎶

42,984 Aufrufe • vor 16 Tagen

Someone ran Claude Code on a beach where any device overheats and that spot suddenly turned out to be the best home for the most powerful AI in the world. This is the reMarkable Paper Pro. A paper tablet for notes with no browser and no social media and not a single app. He sat down right on the sand in the open sun and brought up Claude Code on Opus 4.6 over the Claude API on the paper screen and opened his project ~/repos/webs while the waves broke a few steps away. For years every device had the same trouble outside. In direct sun the screen glares and washes out and heats up and instead of your work you see your own reflection. But e-ink does not blast its own light into your face. It reflects the sunlight like the page of a book. And here is what came out of it. The very thing that kills any normal screen outside turned into fuel for this one. The brighter the sun the sharper the picture because it has nothing to glare with and nothing to wash out. And then comes the thing no laptop on a beach will give you. Your eyes do not get tired. You can watch Opus think on max effort for an hour and it reads like a book in the sun and not a backlight you squint into. The picture only comes alive. In bright light it does not fade but turns sharper and higher in contrast than it ever was in a room. The charge lasts for days. E-ink barely touches the battery so there is no outlet anywhere on the sand and the tablet does not care. It weighs as much as a notebook. The whole setup folds into a beach bag like a pad with a pen on top. Everything on the screen is for real. Claude Code v2.1.110 and Opus 4.6 on the Claude API and the project ~/repos/webs open right on the e-ink in the middle of the sand. In my opinion this is the most unexpected home for an AI this year. Not an office with the blinds drawn and not a monitor cranked to full brightness but a quiet sheet of paper on the sand that open sun only makes better and on it the most powerful Claude writes code right on the page like a pen.

Blaze

89,575 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

A DEVELOPER CONNECTED CLAUDE CODE TO OBSIDIAN SO HIS AI AGENT WOULD STOP FORGETTING THE PROJECT EVERY MORNING. Every coding session used to start the same way. Claude would understand the repo, fix the bug, explain the architecture, and then the moment the session ended, all of that context disappeared. Same codebase. Same decisions. Same architecture. Same mistakes repeated again. So he added a memory layer. Instead of treating Claude Code like a smart terminal, he connected it to a local Obsidian vault through MCP. Now Claude can read the repo, open the vault, create notes, link concepts, and write important decisions back into the system. When it studies the codebase, it does not just answer once and forget. It creates notes for the major services, maps how the architecture works, links auth to the database, connects APIs to storage, and records why certain migrations or design choices exist. Obsidian becomes the project graph. Now when he asks why something was built a certain way, Claude does not guess from the current prompt. It reads the decision notes. When he starts a new branch, Claude checks the active context file. When the work is done, it updates what changed, what is blocked, and what the next agent needs to know before touching the repo. That is the real loop: read context, write code, capture decisions, update memory. Most people are still using AI coding tools like disposable chat windows. Ask, patch, close, forget. This setup turns Claude Code into infrastructure. The repo gets a memory layer that survives every session, and multiple AI agents can work from the same project map without stepping on each other. The unlock is not better prompting. The unlock is giving the agent somewhere to remember what it already learned.

DegenCalls

20,124 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

your agent reviewing its own work is not a check. it is a second opinion from the same source. this is the most common gap in agent systems and it hides in plain sight, because the step exists. there is a review. it just cannot do the thing you think it does. here is the mechanism. the model produced an output from a context. you then ask the same model, holding the same context, whether that output is correct. it answers fluently, because that is what it does. and the answer is drawn from the same distribution that produced the thing being judged. same weights, same window, same blind spots. if the reason the output is wrong is something the model does not know, the review does not know it either. if the reason is something the context does not contain, the review has the same context. the failure mode and the detector share a cause. > why it feels like it works because most of the time the output is fine, and the review says fine. agreement is not evidence of detection. a reviewer that says pass on everything agrees with reality most of the time too. what you actually want to measure is what happens on the cases that are wrong. that is the only place a check earns its name, and it is exactly the place where a self-review is weakest. there is research on this. Huang and colleagues at DeepMind showed at ICLR 2024 that intrinsic self-correction, revising without external grounding, does not reliably help and often makes things worse. > what to actually do move the check outside the model. a test that runs, a schema that validates, a file that exists or does not, an exit code from something you did not write. these are not smarter than the model. they are just not correlated with it, and that is the entire value. when the judgement genuinely needs a model, at minimum use a different family. same family means shared blind spots, and frontier judges measurably inflate scores for outputs that look like their own. and split the work by kind. anything objectively checkable goes to code. only the genuinely semantic calls go to a judge, and those get a rubric written as one line. a review inside the loop tells you the model is confident. a check outside it tells you whether the work is done. save this - then read the eval setup below

Hanako

14,325 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

THIS GUY BUILT A CLAUDE CODE X OBSIDIAN MAP OF HIS ENTIRE CONTENT SYSTEM This is the useful version of “AI second brain.” Not dumping more notes. Not asking Claude for a prettier folder system. Not making a canvas because it looks smart. In the video, he points Claude Code at his Obsidian setup and shows a visual map of the actual content pipeline: Analysis Ideation Prep Scripting Prep Performance The interesting part is the shape. Each stage is connected to the next one. Some boxes show sub-processes. One section shows a router detecting content type and routing a short into the next step. There are references attached to the flow. That is a real payoff: you stop treating your vault like storage and start treating it like an inspectable machine. The move is simple: 1. Put the real workflow in markdown 2. Let Claude Code inspect the vault 3. Ask it to find stages, dependencies, and missing links 4. Turn the output into an Obsidian map 5. Use the map to see what is manual, duplicated, or broken This works because Claude Code is not just summarizing a note. It can read across prompts, docs, scripts, references, and messy process files, then expose the structure you stopped seeing. That is why the demo hits. The video is not really about “better note-taking.” It is about making your private operating system visible enough to debug. Caveat: a beautiful graph does not mean you have a working system. If the notes are vague, the map will be vague. If the process is fake, Claude will draw a fake process very cleanly. If nothing feeds back into performance, the canvas is just decoration. But if the vault already contains real work, Claude Code x Obsidian becomes a powerful audit tool. Your notes stop being a pile. They become a map of what you actually do.

kocer

15,941 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

This woman is being accused of being rude by the worker, to me I think the worker was rude. She’s trying to return something without the packaging and was denied without it. So she went and bought another one and used that packaging to return the old one. She always had the receipt she just didn’t have the package. Either way she’s left with another item she didn’t need or return. I recall when I was at the pizza shop and a customer gave us the wrong address by mistake. She was babysitting and wanted pizza delivered to the customers house instead. I get a call from our driver saying he couldn’t find it, so I call her back and said that the driver couldn’t find the address, it didn’t even exist on gps. She argues with me how the home has been there for over 80 years and that my driver was too stupid to find it. I couldn’t find it on my Apple Maps either and asked her to double check the address. She told us the house number was 869 and it was actually 896. So after that I call my driver and he delivers it. Not even 5 minutes later she calls back complaining her food was cold. I told her it’s cold likely because the driver took a long time trying to find an address that didn’t exist. So once again she gets all belligerent. I refused to remake it or refund it based on her mistake and she claims I just lost a life long customer. Was I wrong for that, would you have remade it? Maybe I would have as a courtesy if she was cool about it but she wasn’t especially since it was her mistake. I usually don’t do anything unless we messed up.

SonnyBoy🇺🇸

137,875 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat