Veserv

69 ms·

931.
by Veserv 3y ago
Not that I am aware of, which bolsters my point. If airsoft pellets keep ripping through everybody's "bulletproof" vests and they all keep telling you to have faith in their new vest, and no, they will not provide you any evi
932.
by Veserv 3y ago
Shooting a hole in a bulletproof vest with a slingshot is not a sign the bulletproof vest is garbage. All shooting a hole in a bulletproof vest with a slingshot means is someone decided to shoot a bulletproof vest with a slingshot and found
933.
by Veserv 3y ago
So I can just give you a cardboard box and call it a vault? You can not prove me wrong upfront so you have to believe me? That is ridiculous. There is plenty of evidence you can provide to establish confidence that a certain degree of secur
934.
by Veserv 3y ago
The person I was responding to said these providers “should never get hacked”. Given that the default assumption is that systems are easily hacked, then logically such a requirement demands proof (in the sense of robust evidence) before acc
935.
by Veserv 3y ago
Counter question, how has Okta proven that they have integrity and are competent and can be trusted to run critical IT? What quantitive evidence have they ever demonstrated that shows they can stop the attackers who would like access to the
936.
by Veserv 3y ago
Why would you use them before they prove they can not be breached? The default assumption is that they can all be breached, the burden of proof is on them to prove they will not get compromised. It would only seem prudent to wait for positi
937.
by Veserv 3y ago
Just to check who is right, I did a simple search and found this: https://www.reddit.com/r/electricvehicles/comments/1635zrm/c... Looks like tape to me. How is it a myth?
938.
by Veserv 3y ago
As someone who does not do modern C++ development, the problems they bring up seem to largely be of the flavor that positional parameters work poorly with default values in C++. The reason being that all default values do is give you the ab
939.
by Veserv 3y ago
That is... tough. Do you want to know what you can do for yourself, or what society can do to fix the problem? If you are considering for yourself, then there is the short term and long term view. The short term view is that the cost of com
940.
by Veserv 3y ago
First of all, tens to hundreds of companies are being hacked every week. The exact numbers are hard to exactly determine since they are not required to disclose the information. Here is a publicly available report on the state of ransomware
941.
by Veserv 3y ago
Sure, in many of the post-mortems you can see that the attack probably only cost something like 10 K$ to execute. If their team did everything right they could literally make it 100x more secure. But that still only brings it to 1 M$. That
942.
by Veserv 3y ago
The problem is the risk landscape is shifting under the policies. 5 years ago, ransoms were 100 K$ on the high end. Now they are 10 M$. The number of ransomware attacks per year has been tripling(!) year over year for the last few years. So
943.
by Veserv 3y ago
As any competent security executive would tell you, even if they had a unlimited budget, complete management support, all recommendations followed, and total control over business process short of utterly crippling operations, the cost of h
944.
by Veserv 3y ago
They obviously meant safety in the sense of "knowing the operation is safe because it is checked". You can tell that was the intention because they say "forced to satisfy" which indicates the stated operation is unnecess
945.
by Veserv 3y ago
You know very well that eating animals has a purpose. The very fact that you are arguing that it is okay to torture monkeys means that you do not actually believe that eating animals is wrong. But you know what does have no purpose whatsoev
946.
by Veserv 3y ago
Most software development is not engineering. Engineering is about requirements, guarantees, and specifications. When you engineer a bridge, there is a use case such as light vehicle traffic. That translates to a load requirement to achieve
947.
by Veserv 3y ago
So is it okay to kill a thousand monkeys for funsies because it is “insignificant in comparison”? No, that would be highly unethical. There is no societal benefit to such a action, so nothing can justify the action. No matter how few animal
948.
by Veserv 3y ago
No, killing a pig to eat it is much more valuable than killing 25 pigs in your experimental trial because you accidentally used the wrong implant so you completely ruined your experiment and learned absolutely nothing while killing them. In
949.
by Veserv 3y ago
Is killing a pig to eat it worse than killing 25 of the 60 pigs in a experiment because you accidentally put in the wrong implant so the experiment is ruined and you learned nothing from killing them? At least when somebody eats the pig som
950.
by Veserv 3y ago
And what if the outcome is that nothing is achieved or learned. Or that they learned less than they would have with less sloppy practices. Or that their sloppier than average practices on animals translate to sloppier than average practices
951.
by Veserv 3y ago
Yeah, you are going to need to support a claim of solving the biggest problem in operating system security with more than a random assertion. How about you start by finding a quote by any member of the development team who is willing to sup
952.
by Veserv 3y ago
If you can sandbox arbitrary malicious code, then you can make a unhackable operating system/runtime. Such a feat is frequently viewed as literally impossible in many software circles and would constitute a extraordinary claim that dem
953.
by Veserv 3y ago
Browser sandbox escapes from untrusted JavaScript are discovered and exploited regularly. JavaScript is much more constrained than the full force of a low level language like WebAssembly, and they can not even get the JavaScript sandbox saf
954.
by Veserv 3y ago
The problem you want solved, perfect sandboxing for untrusted code, is only just THE single most important problem in operating system security. If you can solve that then you have the basis of a perfectly secure, unhackable operating sys
955.
by Veserv 3y ago
Then don’t do that. You are the one who brought up alfalfa, the classic example of a low value good being subsidized by unsustainable and flagrant water usage, as evidence that desalination is not viable. I pointed out how even if we decide
956.
by Veserv 3y ago
Oh geez, 6840 kWh. At 0.10 $/kWh that is ~700 $. Added onto the 480 $ that would increase the costs to nearly 8% of the US budget. If it takes a 8% increase in the government budget, I prefer dying of starvation and thirst, said nobody
957.
by Veserv 3y ago
Or maybe the unsustainable depletion of groundwater for the purpose of growing alfalfa is only viable in very niche areas without heavy subsidies? The number they are quoting is 0.41 $/m^3. Per capita water withdrawals (including agric
958.
by Veserv 3y ago
That is easy. The ad placers are liable for 100% of the harm caused. They can figure out how to deal with it so they stop causing harm. A simple solution is requiring the companies providing the ads to be placed to indemnify the ad placers.
959.
by Veserv 3y ago
They should be 100% strictly liable for any lies at all of any form in advertising they show. The media companies can then solve the risk like everybody else by requiring their ad providers to indemnify the media companies for any liability
960.
by Veserv 3y ago
20 K$ of training with a two-year binding to pay it back is structurally a 20 K$ loan with a two year term and a clause demanding instant repayment of the entire principal in full if you quit. If the company is actually giving you 20 K$ wor

More ›