lucianbr

27 ms·

601.
by lucianbr 2y ago
I really have no clue what p is, but I also really believe Randall Munroe does. Not that he's above making mistakes, but come on.
602.
by lucianbr 2y ago
Still, it did not happen at the same time, did it? Diversity has advantages, even if none of the systems is perfect.
603.
by lucianbr 2y ago
Are there any consequences if the answers are problematic in any way? Seems more like theatre from where I'm standing (far, far away).
604.
by lucianbr 2y ago
Maybe by "nice" they just meant "not rat-infested, not cockroach-infested, the roof does not leak, it's not unlivably hot in the summer etc". Problems with which plenty of people on this planet still contend. Your c
605.
by lucianbr 2y ago
Why do you think the kernel crashes when crowdstrike attempts to reference some unavailable address (or whatever it does) instead of just denying that operation and continuing on? That would be the solution using this philosophy "just
606.
by lucianbr 2y ago
Did you read the article? It says computers will not crash in the future due to updates. It literally says that in the very first line of the article. > In the future, computers will not crash due to bad software updates, even those upda
607.
by lucianbr 2y ago
If the verifier allowed a Turing-complete language, it would solve the halting probem, which is impossible.
608.
by lucianbr 2y ago
I have quoted the claim verbatim from the article. It is obviously the claim of the article.
609.
by lucianbr 2y ago
Obviously in userspace it would only crash the running program and not the entire operating system? It's a significant difference. All of the service interruptions would have been just "computer temporarily not protected by crowds
610.
by lucianbr 2y ago
Bad wording on my part, and I still don't know how to word it better. I'm sure this thing is useful, I don't think everyone who contributed code was just clueless. However, the claim "in the future, computers will not cr
611.
by lucianbr 2y ago
"Improves kernel stability" is great. "Prevents kernel crashes" is a plain lie. > In the future, computers will not crash due to bad software updates, even those updates that involve kernel code. Come on. Computers wi
612.
by lucianbr 2y ago
It's casually claiming to have solved the halting problem, at least within some limited but useful context. That should be impossible, and it turns out, it is. I expect it can be solved within some limited contexts, but those contexts
613.
by lucianbr 2y ago
So this "solves" the halting problem by creating a new class "might-not-halt-but-not-sure" and lumping it with "does-not-halt". I find it hard to believe the new class is small enough for this to be useful, in
614.
by lucianbr 2y ago
An appeal to authority if ever there was one. Their critique is written here, in plain english. Any fault with it you can just mention. The "I won't read your comment unless you get X journal to publish it" seems really count
615.
by lucianbr 2y ago
Has anyone done the <aloud> thing, and achieved some interesting results? Seems a pretty obvious thing to try, but I never heard of anything like it.
616.
by lucianbr 2y ago
> A disk driver update should be 100% separate and compatible with not just the latest OS kernel but ones from 10+ years ago. People, companies, countries that do this, will be overtaken technologically by others that accept the brittlen
617.
by lucianbr 2y ago
That's definitely what I meant - just because you wear a seatbelt does not mean it is now impossible to get hurt. You still need to drive carefully. To me, it looks like these people relied on the safety of seatbelts and drove really
618.
by lucianbr 2y ago
You're just moving the bugs or exploits to the specification then. Cool trick, what can I say.
619.
by lucianbr 2y ago
You can make a system tolerant to certain faults. Other faults are left "untolerated". A system that can tolerate anything, so have perfect availability, seems clearly impossible. So yeah, totally right, it's always a tradeof
620.
by lucianbr 2y ago
It is impossible to write bug-free/exploit-free code. But some companies are using this as an excuse to not care about the chances of an exploit at all, and just write code in a cheaper way. We need a middle ground, where there is at
621.
by lucianbr 2y ago
From what I read they automatically updated data. But the pre-existing code had a bug, which crashed on reading the updated data. Even if this is not what happened, it is possible, and shows the data/code update separation does not pre
622.
by lucianbr 2y ago
CYA is the reason you do the audit. But the reason for the audit's existence and requirement is definitely so that hacks don't happen. Don't tell me regulatory agencies require things so that companies can hide behind them.
623.
by lucianbr 2y ago
Good point. But the audit seems useless now. It's supposed to prevent the carelessness from causing... this thing that happened anyway. Sure, maybe it prevented even more events like this from happening. But still.
624.
by lucianbr 2y ago
Something that has managed to ground a lot of planes and disable emergency calls today is in fact critical. The outcome of it failing proves it is critical. Whatever it is. Now, that it was not known previously to be critical, that may be.
625.
by lucianbr 2y ago
You're literally asking what is wrong with lies. Plenty, think about it.
626.
by lucianbr 2y ago
I mean, they're not useful at all, let alone "very useful". Can you explain what the use of this article is assuming the classification of movies in various categories (e.g. future, present, past; world better, same, worse) i
627.
by lucianbr 2y ago
Who cares if the results are "consistent"? Whatever that means. The question is whether the results are true, correct. If they are erroneous, consistency is useless.
628.
by lucianbr 2y ago
It seems it's very hard to avoid trying to become everything everywhere. It looks easy from our point of view, but when you're at the wheel, it looks like the most reasonable course of action.
629.
by lucianbr 2y ago
Thanks for explaining, I had no idea.
630.
by lucianbr 2y ago
What's "downhill from a septic tank"? Isn't a septic tank a container that slowly fills up and is periodically emptied by a truck or something? There is no "flow downhill", is there? I thought the whole reason

More ›