3 ms·

What are you smoking, we hear about breaches of super important databases all the time and that doesn't seem to convince any company to give a single shit more

What are you smoking, we hear about breaches of super important databases all the time and that doesn't seem to convince any company to give a single shit more than just enough to avoid negligence. Not to mention social media's entire business model is hacking people - keep them on your platform by any means necessary.

ruthmarx 2y ago
> What are you smoking, Facts and reality, I guess? > we hear about breaches of super important databases all the time and that doesn't seem to convince any company to give a single shit more than just enough to avoid negligence. I'm not sure why you think this is counter to my point (perhaps we should wonder what you yourself are smoking?), which to reiterate was that: 1. Most current security issues are due to the various insecure foundations we build our technology on, and 2. By the time Neuralink type implants are common, that won't be the case anymore.
- hyperman1 2y ago
  We have both cars and pacemakers that can kill people if you send the right wireless commands. Why would Neuralink be different? I agree that we do have the technology to make it secure if we want to. We've made flight software secure in the '80s or so. What we don't have, is the incentives. We've built everything on insecure foundations to get to the market cheaper and faster. These incentives don't change for Neuralink. In fact, they create kind of gold rush conditions that make things worse. What could change things dramatically overnight was the governenent stepping in and enforcing safety regulations, even at the cost of red tape and slow bureaucratic processes. And it's starting, slowly. But e.g. the EU is promoting SBOM's, sobtheir underlying mental model is still one where you tape random software together quickly.
  - ruthmarx 2y ago
    > Why would Neuralink be different? At some point in the future no one will be using x86 or any variation, and we will all be using a secure architecture. Same as with insecure languages, far enough in the future, every language in common use will be safe. I believe by the time brain implants are common, we will be far enough in the future that we will be using secure foundations for those brain implants. > What could change things dramatically overnight was the governenent stepping in and enforcing safety regulations, For a damn brain implant I don't see why they wouldn't.
- CatWChainsaw 2y ago
  I can tell you're high because #2. The only way Neuralink is secure is if we get rid of the system that incentivizes #1, aka capitalism, and not replace it with something equally bad or worse. Oh, and Musk isn't allowed a Neuralink tripwire to blow up your brain via his invention because he saw pronouns listed somewhere and got triggered.
  - ruthmarx 2y ago
    Nah, not high, just experienced. > The only way Neuralink is secure is if we get rid of the system that incentivizes #1, aka capitalism, and not replace it with something equally bad or worse. Oh man, you've ingested that anti-capitalism koolaid like so many young college kids are so quick to do. It's always such a shame. This isn't really anything to do with capitalism, it's a question of regulation e.g. what the FDA does, and also a question of time because when enough time passes, most computing will be secure by default due to having rid the insecure foundations. And more than that, it's an issue with democracy more than capitalism. Fix the way people vote if you want to fix the world, or prevent the types of people who want to believe the earth is flat from having a vote at all.
    - CatWChainsaw 2y ago
      I'll believe this pipe dream when I see it, that's all I'm saying.

ruthmarx 2y ago

> What are you smoking, Facts and reality, I guess? > we hear about breaches of super important databases all the time and that doesn't seem to convince any company to give a single shit more than just enough to avoid negligence. I'm not sure why you think this is counter to my point (perhaps we should wonder what you yourself are smoking?), which to reiterate was that: 1. Most current security issues are due to the various insecure foundations we build our technology on, and 2. By the time Neuralink type implants are common, that won't be the case anymore.

hyperman1 2y ago
We have both cars and pacemakers that can kill people if you send the right wireless commands. Why would Neuralink be different? I agree that we do have the technology to make it secure if we want to. We've made flight software secure in the '80s or so. What we don't have, is the incentives. We've built everything on insecure foundations to get to the market cheaper and faster. These incentives don't change for Neuralink. In fact, they create kind of gold rush conditions that make things worse. What could change things dramatically overnight was the governenent stepping in and enforcing safety regulations, even at the cost of red tape and slow bureaucratic processes. And it's starting, slowly. But e.g. the EU is promoting SBOM's, sobtheir underlying mental model is still one where you tape random software together quickly.
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  > Why would Neuralink be different? At some point in the future no one will be using x86 or any variation, and we will all be using a secure architecture. Same as with insecure languages, far enough in the future, every language in common use will be safe. I believe by the time brain implants are common, we will be far enough in the future that we will be using secure foundations for those brain implants. > What could change things dramatically overnight was the governenent stepping in and enforcing safety regulations, For a damn brain implant I don't see why they wouldn't.
CatWChainsaw 2y ago
I can tell you're high because #2. The only way Neuralink is secure is if we get rid of the system that incentivizes #1, aka capitalism, and not replace it with something equally bad or worse. Oh, and Musk isn't allowed a Neuralink tripwire to blow up your brain via his invention because he saw pronouns listed somewhere and got triggered.
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  Nah, not high, just experienced. > The only way Neuralink is secure is if we get rid of the system that incentivizes #1, aka capitalism, and not replace it with something equally bad or worse. Oh man, you've ingested that anti-capitalism koolaid like so many young college kids are so quick to do. It's always such a shame. This isn't really anything to do with capitalism, it's a question of regulation e.g. what the FDA does, and also a question of time because when enough time passes, most computing will be secure by default due to having rid the insecure foundations. And more than that, it's an issue with democracy more than capitalism. Fix the way people vote if you want to fix the world, or prevent the types of people who want to believe the earth is flat from having a vote at all.
  - CatWChainsaw 2y ago
    I'll believe this pipe dream when I see it, that's all I'm saying.