This is California you are talking about. They get the best of everything, least they can do is be good at their meaningless pursuits.
You can avoid this whole class of problems entirely by simply choosing to be an antinatalist.
So it basically returns "true" (with hash H) from network-accessing function if "curl" succeeds, and "false" (with hash H) if "curl" fails?
Even after reading this 10 times I still don't understand what this hack is about. I understand these things independently: 1) SHA1 collision weakness 2) Nix checking package SHA1 when updating packages 3) Chromium…
This is California you are talking about. They get the best of everything, least they can do is be good at their meaningless pursuits.
You can avoid this whole class of problems entirely by simply choosing to be an antinatalist.
So it basically returns "true" (with hash H) from network-accessing function if "curl" succeeds, and "false" (with hash H) if "curl" fails?
Even after reading this 10 times I still don't understand what this hack is about. I understand these things independently: 1) SHA1 collision weakness 2) Nix checking package SHA1 when updating packages 3) Chromium…