because if they are using the feature and need it, now they can buy the new one that can do it. the perceived profit loss is the expensive bit for these twads
yeah this is so shirtless. Why is the industry trying act babies dont take time to incubate. side stepping these will lead to a still born. This is not the initial cost and it's entirely self-directed. This is entirely avoidable, in fact they need to do this as quickly as possible to push an accelerationist agenda.
Unnecessarily complicated APIs are a security code smell precisely because they help hide bugs, leaky abstractions, insecure state, and other exploitable issues.
There are two different things here: there’s code that is vulnerable because of unnecessary complexity, and there is imputing malice or an intent to hide exploitability through complexity. OpenSSL exhibits the former, not the latter.
The OpenBSD folks came to the exact opposite conclusion after auditing the code:
"In a nutshell, This was a very effective exploit mitigation technique countermeasure. It could not have been designed better to make an attack like heartbleed both hard to detect and have dire consequences. OpenBSD's memory allocator, Valgrind, and Coverity do not notice the memory issues."
Further, known exploits like the one crafted for XZ take advantage of plausible deniability and trust in contributors at every opportunity. Meaning that even if you wanted to disclaim malice, you cannot do so effectively.
These days OpenBSD aren’t testing code with Valgrind. IMO the move to limit syscalls to known libs like libc was not a very smart move. It totally breaks Valgrind and from what I’ve seen (I’m not a security expert) it isn’t difficult to circumvent https://isopenbsdsecu.re/mitigations/pinsyscall/.
They don’t appear to, at least not in my reading. “It could not have been designed better” reads more like an indictment of quality than an accusation of malfeasance.
The chosen phrasing is literally one step short of accusing the author of intent. "It could not have been designed better to [avoid detection] and cause harm" leaves open the possibility of accident, in the way that saying "this guillotine could not have been designed better to chop heads" leaves open the possibility of one spontaneously assembling from raw materials.
In my experience the phrase "it couldn't have been designed better to [negative thing]" is typically used, in a sarcastic, and usually exaggerated way, to mean "they did such a bad job, that they couldn't have done [negative thing] better, even if they had been intentionally trying to do [negative thing] (which they weren't)."
This was basically never true because of all the exceptions and deductions you could do.
>now its optional. this isnt that hard
No, such arguments usually rely on redefining "income" to mean something else, eg. unrealized gains. Even the much maligned "borrow, lend, die" wheeze is less common than what people think.
referencing previous taxation on the rich in this country the past 100 years makes me think otherwise. so with even less tax, all those deductions and exceptions help even more. Keep pretending. The scale of the wealth disparity isnt really sensical and seems to be a global threat to stability. if you wanna stroke the status quo, go for it.
Ironic given that seemingly all you have to substantiate your arguments are vibes, and the rest of your comment is just a pathetic attempt at tribalism rather than anything concrete.
is stunning even real though? who wants a picture when you can be alive. hoas tend to be more about the veneer than the spirit of their existence. the intent is nice but humans gonna power trip if they seek those positions of authority
they are tools. who do you think is using them? dogs?
your comment is another classic hacker news comment. missing the meaning to validate themselves. Lower than my own effort, but wow does it come in so many forms on this site. as if mine is any better
