I don't believe it is that rational. It's an ideological assessment, not a risk assessment.
If you agree with the people holding the guns, you feel safer with them. If you agree with the people holding the rock, you feel safer with them. It doesn't matter what they are holding.
I think resolution would benefit from people being honest about their motives and less logical fallacies.
It seems that your motive is much larger than this specific issue at hand and is being guided by a desire to promote an overarching ideology.
Additionally, you chose to focus in on 5 words of the above poster and ignored everything else. This is very much a strawman.
The person you responded to was very much making a slippery slope argument and I agree with you that it will not mean all restaurants will close or go to shit.
I would however like to know how I can get the information I need to make an informed personal choice.
I would also like to state my desire to allow other people the information they need to make an informed choice. What they do with that information, I really don't care. They can make a financial decision, a moral decision, an ethical decision, base it on a whim, base it on a value assessment, feed the numbers into the seed of a random number generator, I really don't think that is my business or yours.
For every sophisticated business person there are four that need basic math and accounting explained to them.
It's all too common to see them base their entire business around a single percentage above total raw ingredient cost.
While I agree predatory is a strong word, you are missing the point. There is an ecosystem of small businesses that are being cannibalized by delivery app companies. These are the places I enjoy eating, places that are unique and amazing but not necessarily the top rungs of the business ladder.
This is happening because these delivery apps that are run by sophisticated business people haven't even worked out their business model yet.
Asking for transparency isn't asking for too much.
They are nearly equivalent in terms of functional security.
Function isn't everything though. One example shows an awareness of the security issue and good habit being used despite the low impact. I'd argue that there is a security benefit to using one over the other.
Additionally, it's not as simple as saying "if you can change memory, then you can change memory". Memory exploits are quite often chains of small issues these days and not the simple buffer overflow of old.
For example, being able to overwrite one byte somewhere could lead to the ability to change only part of a variable address. That could be used to redirect a write to the constant string in memory.
Sure it's contrived, but scenarios like this do happen.
Just for an example. How about debugging a non trivial issue between a program and a dynamically loaded library.
You can't just scan the IAT/PLT. You are going to have to find load points or manually step through, and maybe calculate function offsets in the library. Not impossible at all.
It is however something you could have just quickly glanced at and found otherwise.
I agree. I'm not sure I understand your point though. This isn't contrary to anything I said. I mention unpacking which would be a pre-debugger process.
I believe you are just being pedantic about my use of the word "debugging" to include things like unpacking, static analysis, and a variety of tools and processes used.
You are conflating the act of debugging with the operation of a "debugger".
Sure you can start at 0 and step forward one instruction at a time, but how often do you do that without at least looking at the code?
Not being able to look ahead or behind but only within what is actively on the stack is certainly a limiting factor in debugging.
It is of course a problem that has been solved before. Someone would develop an unpacker/decrypter for it at some point and make this trivial, but that would still be an added level of complexity.
There are a series of different protections they are doing. It's not clear if they intend them to be uniquely switchable or if they were just separating them to indicate which attack techniques require which protections.
For example it appears to combat ROP they are additionally encrypting the code segment of the program and decrypting on an as needed basis. I am absolutely sure this would make debugging more difficult. It wouldn't be used on a debug build though so I guess the question is how often would you find yourself debugging a production executable.
I admit I didn't read it in depth and may have missed something but I wonder if they are doing something similar for dynamic libraries or if it relies on the code being available at compile time. If not then I'm sure someone clever will still get around it with ROP.
These "genres" mostly fit very comfortably into their parent category. Even to the point that if you treat it as a strict history of the music, the majority of the subgenres are unnecessary.
It's poorly presented in this regard. It doesn't do a good job of delineating the music and the cultural history.
What is being taken as genre bashing is really tribalism and the subcultural awareness of the author. In contrast to it's failings as a strict musical history, it presents extremely well the cultural history around the music.
If you agree with the people holding the guns, you feel safer with them. If you agree with the people holding the rock, you feel safer with them. It doesn't matter what they are holding.