By corrupting memory and causing the CPU to jump from the intended instruction to a different one controlled by the attacker, at which point their instructions control what your process does next. Getting shell does not mean getting it to feed a spicy string to system(), it means tricking something in the process into overwriting memory with bytes that, if read as instructions, tell the CPU to make a system call to spawn a different process running arbitrary code.
You could do that to an internet-connected toaster with a JPEG. The system() function has nothing to do with it.
Some tools will automatically ignore commits in a .git-blame-ignore-revs file. Git itself can "blame --ignore-rev " or "blame --ignore-revs-file " since version 2.23.
Though git-blame may fail or crash if blame.ignoreRevsFile is set but the file is missing (hence "config", not "config --global"). Since version 2.53, a configured ignoreRevsFile can be missing if the value starts with ":(optional)".
On no other issue would this type of wishful thinking be accepted.
If I pour some water in a bucket and come back to find it's all leaked out, and do this every day for all of human history and always get the same result, I don't conclude the water wouldn't leak if it just tried a little harder.
It's ridiculous to imply that throughout human history, there has never been any long term collective action against individual interests. There are so many examples of such collective actions (especially on the local level), but even globally there are obvious cases like the ozone issue.
Of course, and I'm not saying that. Coordinated action is so stupidly effective that it barely even matters what you do, and long as you all do it together.
That doesn't mean it's possible for every problem. There's always a coordination cost. The larger your per-person cost times the number of people you need, the more unlikely the coordinated action is to happen. Spontaneous coordination is an oxymoron and improbable by definition. It's a situation where the system doesn't do what's energetically favored and instead does something else that isn't.
Ascribing agency to systems is a human bias. Ascribing it to groups of agents is both human nature and the fallacy of composition. Blaming individuals instead of looking at the system and the context is both human nature and the fundamental attribution error. This is one of many places where the bucket leaks.
Currently some groups with low coordination costs (and so high leverage) are coordinating to increase coordination costs for the groups that oppose them, using tactics that are independently high-leverage, multiplying their effect so much that they can make the opposition's costs effectively unbounded. Human nature makes the opposition wilfully, aggressively deny this and insist their costs are low and people are just bad and lazy. (Somehow, everybody being bad and lazy all at once does not reflect on human nature.)
The argument about coordination costs is more or less uncontroversial when projected into any other subject. It's only controversial here because of human nature. It's another leak.
Your opposition's agency is concentrated and yours is dilute. Human nature tilts the playing field, diluting yours and concentrating theirs. Accept this and adjust your strategy, or lose.
Your initial comment does literally say that collective action against individual interests has never happened. You might not have meant that, but that is the explicit implication of your bucket example "always get[ting] the same result".
But it seems you actually agree with my initial statement? Or what are you arguing against? Because in my mind, altering our social and political systems is the only way to adjust our strategy.
I am saying human nature is the reason "just coordinate" has not resolved this problem, and denying human nature keeps us from coordinating on this problem doesn't help.
Ugh, this is like my catchphrase now, but: "If everybody just" is a description of a problem, not a solution. Specifically a problem that exists because they haven't justed and will never just, no matter what could happen if they just.
Coordination metaproblems where coordination problems that exist cannot be solved because of human nature are a consequence of human nature interacting with the laws of nature.
But I'm not saying to "just coordinate", and I'm not denying any part of human nature? It feels like you're reading things into my initial statement that I neither wrote nor see when reading it again.
> humans do have that capacity, but our system is explicitly set up to give the most power to the greediest among us
My argument is that we don't have that capacity. The system that we have is what we have because it's what has self-assembled and would self-assemble every time if we ran it again.
I may be wrong, but that's what I'm claiming.
If we want a system different than what self-assembles, we should first admit what self-assembles, and admit it's not because of individuals not doing their part or whatever. The system is the way it is because the natural laws it follows lead it to that state. This is where the whole idea of coordination as a simple answer fails.
People won't spontaneously all accept an unappealing, morally unpleasant, complicated explanation of why things aren't better when a simple, pleasant, satisfying, even righteous explanation is available and fits their preexisting worldview.
I am tired of the moralizing arguments[0] from people sabotaging their own causes, blaming people who are doing something that might work instead of sabotaging harder. If I misunderstood and that's not you, I'm sorry.
I should have been less snippy at the top either way.
> The system that we have is what we have because it's what has self-assembled and would self-assemble every time if we ran it again.
But different societies have developed different systems over the course of human history, no? You're probably looking at the "system" from a different perspective than I do, so I'd appreciate if you could describe this in more detail!
> My argument is that we don't have that capacity.
If humans don't have the capacity for long term collective action against individual interests, there is literally no point in trying any other system.
> If we want a system different than what self-assembles, we should first admit what self-assembles, and admit it's not because of individuals not doing their part or whatever. The system is the way it is because the natural laws it follows lead it to that state.
I really think you're reading positions into my initial comment that I've never stated, because this seems tangential to my thesis.
---
Edit: just saw the part starting at "I am tired of the moralizing arguments", not sure if I overlooked it or you edited. Either way I get your frustrations and agree that simplistic answers don't help. My initial comment was not meant as "it would be so simple if everyone just did X", but as a rebuttal to the idea that humans are incapable of long term collective action against individual interests. If humans fundamentally don't have the ability there'd be no point in trying, but I believe that we do have the capacity and should try, just as I understand you do too.
> If I misunderstood and that's not you, I'm sorry.
> I should have been less snippy at the top either way.
No worries, and thanks. I appreciate that you've explained your thoughts further!
I think they meant "no way," but maybe it's a joke about the Norway problem? YAML famously confuses Norway's country code ("NO" or "no" without quotes) with unquoted "no" meaning Boolean false.
Quality is what we call the difference between what succeeds and what we wish succeeded. It's a measure of how closely the opinion of the person saying "quality" aligns with what is actually rewarded by the fitness function that objectively exists. The only thing you've learned when you hear "quality" is what the speaker thinks is good, not anything about the subject.
Quality does not exist until a (person, preference, subject) pairing happens. It's not real. It's literally not a thing. It's just a name for mixing up your is and ought.
When someone saying "quality" can point to the specific property that makes the subject quality, they're almost always pointing to what is, from the perspective of the fitness function, inefficiency, a waste of energy and effort, more spent than the system rewards.
Anyone who spends a lot of effort building skills to get particular results is going to believe those results are important, at least a necessary part of success, if not the whole definition. When people who did not put in the effort keep succeeding without those results, "quality" becomes the cope. It's shoddy work. They did it wrong. They cheated somehow.
And yet they succeeded.
Because "quality" is what a person says when is and ought don't match, a fact about the speaker, not the subject.
I think the only time quality might be objective is when there's a planned "ought", like a required feature that needs to be implemented later.
From that perspective, the "quality" could be measured in how easy it will be to implement that, in a "total effort" sense (subjective I suppose), where "low quality" might require a whole rewrite of big sections, where "high quality" would have the required stuffs in place (maybe abstractions, or maybe even placed where spaghetti would fit nicely) to make it "easy".
Yay! I've argued this a few times here and it's been, uh, perceived as low quality.
I think "objective quality" can always be re-framed in terms of fitness. "Quality" is just not anything the fitness function measures, so it can't.
It's hard to really make the case because of course there's something real that people mean, colloquially, and it's totally valid. Lots of things objectively have properties most people would agree show quality. That's where it is, it's right there!
But all those properties can be described without the use of "quality" by just reciting every fact about the thing. The only thing that will be left, the only thing you can't communicate that way, is what the person thinks about those facts.
What you're saying requires someone looks past some existing categorizations that they've formed. I suspect you're not as vulnerable to categorization as the usual person, so this probably happens often. ;)
