Veserv

29 ms·

451.
by Veserv 2y ago
Do you believe that killing a pig for bad or sloppy neuroscience research that provides no useful data is worth it? To use an extreme example, say I have a theory that the brain is an unnecessary organ. Can I go around removing pig brains i
452.
by Veserv 2y ago
That is almost entirely irrelevant to the point I was making. I was responding to the argument being made that any animal testing process on a small number of animals is fine since much larger numbers of animals are raised to be eaten. That
453.
by Veserv 2y ago
Yes: https://www.youtube.com/@BCIcanDoBetter Shaking President Obama's hand with "touch feedback" in 2016: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itkgmMLi7l4 Eating a taco in 2018: https:/&#
454.
by Veserv 2y ago
You are ignoring the benefit side of a benefit-harm morality analysis. Eating an animal at least ostensibly has positive value for the people doing so. However, there are plenty of forms of "animal testing" that confer zero positi
455.
by Veserv 2y ago
Well for one we can look to Diaz v. Tesla [1] where Tesla was found guilty of pervasive racism at the Tesla Fremont Factory in California: Pervasive usage of racial slurs by management: "Robert Hurtado, a supervisor at Tesla, called Di
456.
by Veserv 2y ago
Not the OP, but yes. Blindly reciting and believing the contents of books without any discernment also makes you a fool. If you do not believe that, then might I interest you in uncritically imbibing the succulent nectar of wisdom flowing f
457.
by Veserv 2y ago
That is quite unfair. Fires are a function of quantity and time, so you should really be comparing vehicle-years. For the Tesla Cybertruck, we overestimate the vehicle-years by counting the quantity at at the end of the year for the full ye
458.
by Veserv 2y ago
I have no idea what assessment you are even referencing. The only assessments you made as far as I can tell were: 1) The post was made to vilify independent security research. 2) The post argues against "the entire modern science of so
459.
by Veserv 2y ago
We have already have that: ISO 15408, Common Criteria [1]. Certification is already required and done for various classes of products before they can be purchased by the US government. However, large commercial IT vendors such as Microsoft
460.
by Veserv 2y ago
The proposals were not the norms of the time. It is literally a rant against prevailing “bad” ideas of the time. “Default Permit”, “Enumerating Badness”, “Penetrate and Patch”, “Educating Users” were the norms of the time and still, largely
461.
by Veserv 2y ago
I am invoking it. “Penetrate and Patch” is illustrative and catchy and the arguments presented, for that one in particular, are largely theoretically, empirically, and even predictively supported. In fact, all of points except “Hacking is
462.
by Veserv 2y ago
Then you are arguing with a strawman. I never proposed they do it across all products, only the products that they already have vulnerabilitys in that they already seek to disclose. You can not change the parameters of my proposal to ex
463.
by Veserv 2y ago
"Penetrate and Patch" as a failed security process is distinct from vilifying independent security research, and it should be obvious from my post as I point out that penetration testing is a integral part of the testing and verif
464.
by Veserv 2y ago
I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. The government has vulnerabilitys in stock that they already verify function as intended. They already regularly verify these vulnerabilitys continue to function with each update cycle. Th
465.
by Veserv 2y ago
You appear to misunderstand what I am saying: 1) Government already has vulnerabilitys. 2) Government identifies vulnerabilitys they already own by "difficulty to discovery". 3) Government selects the lowest "difficulty to di
466.
by Veserv 2y ago
Disclosing zero-days so the vendor can patch them and declare "mission accomplished" is such a waste. "Penetrate and Patch" is about as effective for software security as it is for bulletproof vests. If you randomly sele
467.
by Veserv 2y ago
Once again, we see that deceptive marketing is one of the great legal evils. Their marketing department assuredly pulled long hours carefully and intentionally crafting statements meant to cause the recipient to believe something false or
468.
by Veserv 2y ago
I agree that you could choose semantics such that as soon as you take the address of a object that any store anywhere could alias it, so it is no longer legal to ever cache the value unless you prove the store does not overlap. But, the key
469.
by Veserv 2y ago
In the original code, it stores through q. In the optimized example: *(char*)iq = 10 -> *(char*)(uintptr_t)(p + 1) = 10 After that optimization pass, there is no store to q. C assumes that you can not store to a different object w
470.
by Veserv 2y ago
I know right. If polio causes paralysis then why do only 0.5% of people who contract polio become paralyzed? Checkmate. That is mixing up necessary versus sufficient. If all people who develop Alzheimer’s contracted HSV-1 prior to develop
471.
by Veserv 2y ago
You can trace consumer desktop CPUs using instrumented software full memory trace, but that requires OS + debugger + compiler support which is not available for Linux, Windows, Mac, etc. You can trace hardware that exposes trace functionali
472.
by Veserv 2y ago
Multiplexing onto a single thread is sufficient to observe and record concurrency errors. If that is not sufficient, then I am assuming you want to observe and record errors caused by true parallelism. If so, then you need a full memory tra
473.
by Veserv 2y ago
Any person who would not go back and do that necessary redesign is unfit to call themselves a craftsperson. Any organization that would not demand you do that necessary redesign is a organization unfit for producing critical systems. Any or
474.
by Veserv 2y ago
That is almost the exact backwards way to talk about capabilities. It is not about "restricting" access, it is about "granting" access. "These libraries can not access the network." No. "These libraries ha
475.
by Veserv 2y ago
It is just supply and demand. The systems are so riddled with security defects that the offered prices are enough to incentivize more reported defects than they can fix (though to be fair, the Pwn2Own bounties are on the low side due to pay
476.
by Veserv 2y ago
There is nothing wrong with it. The point I am making is that “import” is overloaded to mean two distinct things in most languages: declaration of build “arguments” and supplying build “parameters”. It is like defining a function, f(x) and
477.
by Veserv 2y ago
You are mixing up program build arguments and program build parameters. In much the same way that a function has arguments, then you substitute actual parameters when calling it; you should view your build as having arguments, "imports
478.
by Veserv 2y ago
It implies that you do not get absolutely 100% perfect allocation where everybody is maximally happy according to their constraints which is what "efficiently" means in that context. That is also a useless and impractical standard
479.
by Veserv 2y ago
It has been proven that global utility optimization can be equivalent to solving a arbitrarily complex, arbitrarily non-linear, arbitrarily quickly changing, function. Great. There exists exactly zero techniques for solving all such systems
480.
by Veserv 2y ago
Very likely a case of tuning to the standard safety tests. The gold standard for standardized AEB testing is in the Euro NCAP. You can see the testing protocol [1] explicitly specifies [2] a fixed size human adult with black hair, black shi

More ›