PH95VuimJjqBqy

6 ms·

1.
by PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
oh yeah, the article that explains that mistake and failure aren't the same thing doesn't contradict your point that mistake and failure are the same thing. man, I'm so glad you cleared that up for us...
2.
by PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
this is about as perfect an example of the problem as you can have.
3.
by PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
it's not clear to me that you read or understood the article, all of your posts certainly feel as if you didn't. He explained why 0 isn't the goal, you continue to act as if he didn't. I don't know where else this
4.
by PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
there's a reason people say things like "actions speak louder than words". It's easy to say "safety is about tradeoffs" but then when you follow it up with an insistent that no tradeoffs should be made it kind
5.
by PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
oh snap guys, do you see what he did there in his parley? The way he took my point and pretended I was saying something else and that I really agreed with him. That technique so got me that he won! This is most definitely the paragon that
6.
by PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
It's always easy to make a decision when you're not the one paying the cost for it, or don't imagine you will be. In fact, one of the red flags for decision makers is the inability to understand the above tenet.
7.
by PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
We do have information. the guy is a whistleblower, went to court day 1, missed court day 2, and was found dead in his vehicle of unnatural causes. attaching the adjective vacuous doesn't actually strengthen your point.
8.
by PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
lets not split hairs, if the redundancies kick in then the instrumentation didn't go away. > That is bad. But not as bad a FBW system bug. The event in question is better than the plane plummeting out of the sky and killing everyone
9.
by PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
If you can't understand how the expense of doing that may be onerous on a business then you shouldn't be let anywhere near decision making.
10.
by PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
It's not a non sequitur so much as it was a preparation to make the point I'm about to make. There is no world in which two institutions with plenty of money, knowledge, and a lack of coercion are going to come to an agreement for
11.
by PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
ok that's a scenario I didn't fully consider, lmao. but humor aside, the point stands. safety/security is about tradeoffs.
12.
by PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
> We see no realistic path for an evolution of C++ into a language with rigorous memory safety guarantees that include temporal safety. The point Herb was making is that "rigorous memory safety" isn't the only bar, nor sho
13.
by PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
> I have to say, this sentence annoys the heck out of me. > Old code that can't be understood needs to be rewritten anyway. I don't think it's that old code can't be understood, you can always understand what code
14.
by PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
perhaps you should try the steelman technique rather than interpreting his words through a lense of negativity.
15.
by PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
> Of the remaining crates which use "unsafe", the unsafe code is often contained to a tiny percentage of the code, so if we're looking at the overall amount of unsafe code, you're going from 100%, to a fraction of a p
16.
by PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
how would you define concurrent access to a filesystem? That's a serious question, if I open a file for reading and another process writes to it, exactly how is the C++ standards supposed to protect against that?
17.
by PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
that's how you get companies to stop upgrading and eventually end up sitting on a 20 y/o version of C++. 2nd and 3rd order thinking is a thing.
18.
by PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
right, so what you decide to do is quit your job and never leave the house so no one ever has the opportunity to break into your house. Does the cost of doing so justify being 100% secure? most people would say no.
19.
by PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
> Not to mention the weird conclusion that since no language has 0, that isn't the goal. I'm not sure I understand the logic that you shouldn't at least _try_ to not have any major security flaws. He addressed that, the co
20.
by PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
does it matter? under what circumstances is it acceptable for your instrumentation to go away? none is the answer. If the event was caused by the instrumentation going away it's bad. If the instrumentation went away because of the ev
21.
by PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
which makes sense, if someone made an impression on you that impression doesn't disappear in just a few days. At best it may be fuzzier, which could be good or bad.
22.
by PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
> The right are known for lying with the truth which makes a good amount of their rhetoric stick. replace right with humans, the left is also known for lying, which is why both sides are constantly bitching at each other. The extremes of
23.
by PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
alleged is too strong. There's speculation which seems reasonable given the circumstances.
24.
by PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
are we reading through the same set of comments? I see nothing wrong with people speculating over something like this.
25.
by PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
the web is nigh-on unusable without an ad-blocker. When I was young no one really questioned ads in television shows, when I got to uni I kind of stopped watching anything but cable. Then netflix came out and I dropped cable alltogether.
26.
by PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
What are you talking about, X just works. I haven't had to go diving in and manually configure X in _years_ and I remember when you had to tell X to treat your mouse wheel as an extra button just to get it to work. And I say this as
27.
by PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
In other words, you think it's ok to insist on a contract with a loan for 50% interest. I, and many others, disagree and think that's a heinous abuse despite the argument that both parties willingly entered into the agreement.
28.
by PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
it's telling that all of your counterexamples involve the government when the entire discussion is around what non-government 3rd parties are allowed to dictate. Tesla is not the government. Toyota is not the government. stop it.
29.
by PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
What's actually being discussed is the level of authoritarian control software has enabled to non-governmental entities in our lives and how it's so complete that it offers a level of control that not even violence can achieve. Fo
30.
by PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
or, and this is a crazy thought, when someone pays for something they expect to have the right to do what they want with it. When a 3rd party is able to exert absolute control in hampering that ability, it becomes a problem. you purchase a

More ›