https://adguard.com/en/contacts.html

sudo launchctl unload -w /System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.backupd.plist

sudo launchctl unload -w /System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.backupd-auto.plist

sudo launchctl unload -w /System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.backupd-helper.plist

that the protocol was not open was one of my main issues for not using the vpn service,?it is great to see. i look forward for the upcoming audits.

one thing i would like to see more is info about the company. the team, the offices, etc. there have been rumors and contradictory infos over the years, and the blog always have a “stock photo”, shady vibe. putting your address in google maps brings you to a shady alley… improving the image of the company (in my opinion) as it is now would do lots to create and improve trust.

From what I understand reading Mat Levine explanation of the topic, the non-profit controls the board and has supervoting rights, so it cannot be diluted to be outed.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2025-05-06/ope...

Some take the form of different stock classes, with some classes having voting rights, and others no vote at all; other schemes are stock with supervoting rights.

From here: https://openai.com/index/evolving-our-structure/

The nonprofit will continue to control the PBC, and will become a big shareholder in the PBC, in an amount supported by independent financial advisors, giving the nonprofit resources to support programs so AI can benefit many different communities, consistent with the mission. And as the PBC grows, the nonprofit’s resources will grow, so it can do even more. We’re excited to soon get recommendations from our nonprofit commission on how we can help make sure AI benefits everyone—not just a few. Their ideas will focus on how our nonprofit work can support a more democratic AI future, and have real impact in areas like health, education, public services, and scientific discovery.

The previous structure is here: https://openai.com/our-structure/

https://web.ece.ucsb.edu/~parhami/text_comp_arit.htm

So, if someone does x=(0-1), signed will contain (-1) and unsigned will contain (MAXVALUE) (255 if x is char, 8 bits). The point being that (-1) is clearly wrong and invalid, and 255 is valid but wrong. The price to pay for this is one bit of reduced range (meaning, reducing the range by half).

Now, all modern processors have under- and overflow checks. It is also true that nobody uses them regularly, and that they are not easily accessible in C.

Therefore: use unsigned only for modulo arithmetic. For the rest, used signed numbers, as they behave like you would expect.

Also, the C++ Core Guidelines: https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/blob/master/CppC... https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/blob/master/CppC...