3 ms·

This must be super stressful for you, but I do want to note your "I'm sorry for this." It's really human. It is so much better than, you know... "We regret any

This must be super stressful for you, but I do want to note your "I'm sorry for this." It's really human. It is so much better than, you know... "We regret any inconvenience and remain committed to recognising the importance of maintaining trust with our valued community and following the duration of the ongoing transient issue we will continue to drive alignment on a comprehensive remediation framework going forward." Kudos to you. Stressful times, but I hope it helps to know that people are reading this appreciating the response.

cyanydeez 7mo ago
Lawyers are slowly eating humanity.
- singleshot_ 7mo ago
  Allegedly*
- bmurphy1976 7mo ago
  For now. They're about to get hit by the AI wave as bad as us software devs. Who knows what's on the other side of this.
  - blueone 7mo ago
    Sorry that I have to be the one to tell you this, but lawyers are fine. Sure, AI will have an impact, but nothing like the once hyped idea that it would replace lawyers. It has actually been amusing to watch the hype cycle play out around AI when it comes to lawyers.
    - throwawaytea 7mo ago
      My parents had a weird green card and paperwork issue that was becoming a big problem. Everyone in their social circle recommended an immigration type lawyer. Everyone. My dad was confident he could figure it out based on his perplexity Pro account. He attacked the problem from several angles and used it for help with what to do, how to do it, what to ask for when visiting offices, how to press them to move forward, and tons of other things. Got the problem resolved. So it definitely can reduce hiring lawyers even.
      - bmurphy1976 7mo ago
        Hell, the tech savvy senior lawyers are already using LLMs to do the work that army's of juniors and other assistants did for them. Just like what is happening with software engineers. Anybody who thinks this isn't going to have some kind of impact is mental.
        zar1048576 7mo ago
        Definitely. But I think the nature of that impact is not entirely clear. In the legal context, LLMs are also hallucinating extensively, citing made up case law, etc. It’s not yet clear whether they are potentially solving one problem, while introducing many others.
    - recpen 7mo ago
      Lawyership in the sense of the profession may survive and adapt. Individual lawyers, not so much. I strongly doubt the new equilibrium (if we ever reach one) will need so many lawyers. Same logic for software developers.
nextos 7mo ago
I think we really need to use sandboxes. Guix provides sandboxed environments by just flipping a switch. NixOS is in an ideal position to do the same, but for some reason they are regarded as "inconvenient". Personally, I am a heavy user of Firejail and bwrap. We need defense in depth. If someone in the supply chain gets compromised, damage should be limited. It's easy to patch the security model of Linux with userspaces, and even easier with eBPF, but the community is somehow stuck.
- staticassertion 7mo ago
  What would be really helpful is if software sandboxed itself. It's very painful to sandbox software from the outside and it's radically less effective because your sandbox is always maximally permissive. But, sadly, there's no x-platform way to do this, and sandboxing APIs are incredibly bad still and often require privileges. > It's easy to patch the security model of Linux with userspaces, and even easier with eBPF, but the community is somehow stuck. Neither of these is easy tbh. Entering a Linux namespace requires root, so if you want your users to be safe then you have to first ask them to run your service as root. eBPF is a very hard boundary to maintain, requiring you to know every system call that your program can make - updates to libc, upgrades to any library, can break this. Sandboxing tooling is really bad.
  - ashishb 7mo ago
    > It's very painful to sandbox software from the outside and it's radically less effective because your sandbox is always maximally permissive. Not really. Let's say I am running `~/src/project1 $ litellm` Why does this need access to anything outside of `~/src/project1`? Even if it does, you should expose exactly those particular directories (e.g. ~/.config) and nothing else.
    - staticassertion 7mo ago
      How are you setting that sandbox up? I've laid out numerous constraints - x-platform support is non-existent for sandboxing, sandboxing requires privileges to perform, whole-program sandboxing is fundamentally weaker, maintenance of sandboxing is best done by developers, etc. > Even if it does, you should expose exactly those particular directories (e.g. ~/.config) and nothing else. Yes, but now you are in charge of knowing every potential file access, network access, or possibly even system call, for a program that you do not maintain.

cyanydeez 7mo ago

Lawyers are slowly eating humanity.

singleshot_ 7mo ago
Allegedly*
bmurphy1976 7mo ago
For now. They're about to get hit by the AI wave as bad as us software devs. Who knows what's on the other side of this.
- blueone 7mo ago
  Sorry that I have to be the one to tell you this, but lawyers are fine. Sure, AI will have an impact, but nothing like the once hyped idea that it would replace lawyers. It has actually been amusing to watch the hype cycle play out around AI when it comes to lawyers.
  - throwawaytea 7mo ago
    My parents had a weird green card and paperwork issue that was becoming a big problem. Everyone in their social circle recommended an immigration type lawyer. Everyone. My dad was confident he could figure it out based on his perplexity Pro account. He attacked the problem from several angles and used it for help with what to do, how to do it, what to ask for when visiting offices, how to press them to move forward, and tons of other things. Got the problem resolved. So it definitely can reduce hiring lawyers even.
    - bmurphy1976 7mo ago
      Hell, the tech savvy senior lawyers are already using LLMs to do the work that army's of juniors and other assistants did for them. Just like what is happening with software engineers. Anybody who thinks this isn't going to have some kind of impact is mental.
      - zar1048576 7mo ago
        Definitely. But I think the nature of that impact is not entirely clear. In the legal context, LLMs are also hallucinating extensively, citing made up case law, etc. It’s not yet clear whether they are potentially solving one problem, while introducing many others.
  - recpen 7mo ago
    Lawyership in the sense of the profession may survive and adapt. Individual lawyers, not so much. I strongly doubt the new equilibrium (if we ever reach one) will need so many lawyers. Same logic for software developers.

nextos 7mo ago

I think we really need to use sandboxes. Guix provides sandboxed environments by just flipping a switch. NixOS is in an ideal position to do the same, but for some reason they are regarded as "inconvenient". Personally, I am a heavy user of Firejail and bwrap. We need defense in depth. If someone in the supply chain gets compromised, damage should be limited. It's easy to patch the security model of Linux with userspaces, and even easier with eBPF, but the community is somehow stuck.

staticassertion 7mo ago
What would be really helpful is if software sandboxed itself. It's very painful to sandbox software from the outside and it's radically less effective because your sandbox is always maximally permissive. But, sadly, there's no x-platform way to do this, and sandboxing APIs are incredibly bad still and often require privileges. > It's easy to patch the security model of Linux with userspaces, and even easier with eBPF, but the community is somehow stuck. Neither of these is easy tbh. Entering a Linux namespace requires root, so if you want your users to be safe then you have to first ask them to run your service as root. eBPF is a very hard boundary to maintain, requiring you to know every system call that your program can make - updates to libc, upgrades to any library, can break this. Sandboxing tooling is really bad.
- ashishb 7mo ago
  > It's very painful to sandbox software from the outside and it's radically less effective because your sandbox is always maximally permissive. Not really. Let's say I am running `~/src/project1 $ litellm` Why does this need access to anything outside of `~/src/project1`? Even if it does, you should expose exactly those particular directories (e.g. ~/.config) and nothing else.
  - staticassertion 7mo ago
    How are you setting that sandbox up? I've laid out numerous constraints - x-platform support is non-existent for sandboxing, sandboxing requires privileges to perform, whole-program sandboxing is fundamentally weaker, maintenance of sandboxing is best done by developers, etc. > Even if it does, you should expose exactly those particular directories (e.g. ~/.config) and nothing else. Yes, but now you are in charge of knowing every potential file access, network access, or possibly even system call, for a program that you do not maintain.