ATTN, Uniqlo customer service employees: If someone tries to return a shirt claiming an error in the printed computer code, decline the request and reply, "A real script kiddie would've spotted that error before buying."
I read Don Quixote and thought it might be fun to visit some parts of Spain mentioned in the books. Then after looking at some maps and seeing a stark lack of trees, I decided I wouldn't enjoy the trip.
US companies outsourcing all of their manufacturing to countries with cheaper labor and laxer environmental & labor laws led to this. What did those titans of industry think would happen down the road? "I'll be retired." Corporations have way too much power in the US, and that has considerably weakened it.
They definitely play both sides to spread chaos. That's been extremely effective for them in reducing American power and influence. Getting their messaging out there is also a goal.
>It doesn’t matter that the language you use is memory-safe, if you didn’t design for correctness or have no process that will eventually lead you to fixing all bugs.
It's also worth noting that they linked a post about how memory safety is literally a matter of life and death, so it seems like their point is that memory safety is one class of bug, and a compiler guarantee about it doesn't equate to a guarantee of correct, bugless, unexploitable code.
Like, the linked author brought up that Khashoggi's wife's phone was hacked. Maybe that was due to a memory bug or some other kind of bug. Maybe the next journalist who gets hacked is a victim of a memory bug or some other kind of bug. But that linked post didn't take a holistic view of correctness, but went straight to, "Rust is safe. Rust saves lives." There's a logical error there that's being pointed out.
If you really want to save lives, you need to eliminate exploits. Not just do a victory lap because your compiler ostensibly eliminates one class of them. The compiler doesn't catch all bugs. The compiler isn't the only tool for catching bugs.
That's my reading of it, anyway. I think he has a point, and the Rust people do as well. I think it's wrong to portray him as bitter.
>an iPhone could not afford to let every installed application maintain its own background poll against a remote server. The proposal...a single persistent TLS connection from each device to Apple, over which any registered third party could deliver alerts.
I thought apps were sending notifications locally in the device. Like, if a messaging app receives a message, there's a network call for that. Then if the messaging app wants to tell the user they received a message, it can just hit a local API for that, right?
Is the pattern actually that the app makes another network call to the notification service to register the notification, which makes another network call to the device to deliver it?
Seems like you're claiming Ukraine's 2014 "Revolution of Dignity" and subsequent democratic elections were something the USA did. That's a controversial claim, and one that ignores the recorded actions and sentiments of the Ukrainian people. It's also unrealistic and gives the US too much credit.
The US does have their hands in pies across the globe, but that was a large scale uprising of Ukrainian people. No outside force can make something like that happen if the people aren't already aligned.
The simpler explanation is the Ukrainian people wanted to be closer to the EU, and didn't like Yanukovych's authoritarian tendencies. I wouldn't be surprised if some propaganda blamed it on the US, but it doesn't make sense. If the US wanted to do regime change and the public wasn't behind it, it would look very different. There are unfortunately many examples.
Whataboutism. Which is funny because it's literally the same problem.
It's somewhat intractable at this point unless or until we can figure out how to structure society in a way that can actually prevent it. Not sure we have the organizational knowledge at this point.
The government used to have better guards in place, but then what happened? They got weakened because of the monied interests already existed were successful at largely capturing the government. Guess what else happened during much the same time period; The government largely stopped breaking up monopolies, and many unions were busted or otherwise weakened or eliminated.
His ability to use his wealth to influence the government and the populous would be significantly reduced. There's a big difference between "rich" and "rich enough circumvent democracy."
"would"? There is currently a disparity in how rich and poor people are policed.
I get the point that there should be some limited immunity so they can do their jobs. Debatable, but worth the debate.
The argument about the repercussions of eliminating immunity is logical. It just seems like one of those things where there are multiple factors contributing to undesirable outcomes, and that makes it necessary to talk to experts.