One of the major problems with the modern internet is that you can't tell people who advocate for "always do the worst thing all the time! you're morally justified because systems are supposed to be resilient!" that they should be killed or kill themselves.
But I know you don't truly believe that the only reasonable response to "someone could murder me" is to hole yourself up in a bunker - it'd be a pretty awful way to live! You just think that everything low-trust that you do is justified, without thinking about what a world that operates by these principles would actually look like.
>without thinking about what a world that operates by these principles would actually look like.
It would look like the internet....
No, I think about problems like this all the time, especially when it comes to regarding language and human evolution.
The internet represents a problem that humans are not developed for. We are monkeys with sizable brains and a whole lot of tribalism. I'm not generally worried about people intentionally murdering me when I'm out in the world (though unintentionally with bad driving is another story). This is because of the degree of connectivity. When I drive down the street I'm subjected to a few hundred cars. Maybe a few thousand people. All those people have a uniform set of laws that are applied to them. In general we'll have a somewhat similar view of how society will work.
This does not apply to the internet in any way at all. I am subjected to all 4 billion IPv4 addresses and a zillion jillion IPv6 addresses with people that share little in common with me. I share that same net with every criminal. With every fraudster. With every maniacal government. With people that want to steal my money. With people that want to abuse my identity. It doesn't matter how good everyone else is on the planet, I am (as are you) under attack from people that you will never be able to exact justice on.
The internet in general is a low trust world. Always has been, and unless you're in a private forum with very selected entry, always will be. Standing out and making stupid rules just makes you a bigger target for people that find them annoying. Now, they are free to make the sub private, but they won't because they want to spread their political views without any costs of having those views.
The margins on GPUs are estimated at 80% right now. So the price would most likely drop by 70% just by building the additional manufacturing capacity. Assume some modest reductions in cost and the price should drop by 80-90%.
The only reason computers are so expensive is that demand is so out of control.
Crashed demand after one of the big AI labs (probably Anthropic because they focus way too hard on expensive frontier models) become insolvent and every trader panic sells tech stocks.
Even if that doesn't happen, a lot of non AI companies like Oracle that invested too much on data centers will fail and have to sell their hardware. Big models are getting too expensive for a lot of smaller businesses so demand migrates to less GPU hungry ones. That means Oracle might be left with excess capacity.
And we also get more supply because high margins attract investment. 7 years is a realistic time frame to build new DRAM fabs and packaging, it might take even less if governments treat it as a security issue.
The point is that the damage is not so simple to reverse. There are consequences to destroying and regrowing that would not be felt if the destruction had not occurred.
And the point the previous commenter was making is that the damage is pretty simple to reverse because trees are fungible, a point that is not countered in any way by an incredible analogy to notoriously non-fungible children.
If you tell me a piece of software that is not a password manager wants to send the first five characters of the hashes of my password to a third-party, without my explicit opt-in, I will say no without hesitation and without the need to hear more details. Not even if it's a random bit in the hash.
It's fascinating that you feel that way, but "I feel this is a threat" isn't really explaining why you feel it's a threat, especially when the purpose is to identify passwords whose full cleartext is exposed, which I'd rate as a far more substantial concern
People here act like HA includes a script that collects every password on your computer and sends them all over plaintext HTTP. I'm disappointed to be honest.
I would like to see the write-up from the red teamer and white hat hacker that claim they could break into thousands of systems with five characters of a SHA hash of a password. Should be a fun read.
Yeah. The use of the word "scan" in the original article and the title is misleading. It doesn't scan your system looking for passwords and testing them. It appears to take the password you give to HA (either as your HA Password to login to HA, or for an integration) and check those. That is a much smaller impact than is being assumed by many here.
For the most part, most games are antagonistic. And that's fine, that's the fun. Goombas are player-antagonism. Dark Souls is antagonistic. But they are engaging you and testing your ability to execute game mechanics with increasing amounts of precision.
Having to sit through a full hour of video to slowly trace a line is pointlessly antagonistic. It only tests a player's desire to sit through your bullshit. Being able to do it does not make you better at any other part of the game. It doesn't even make you better at that part of the game.
You don’t have to sit through it. It just asks the player to slow down and listen for just an hour. If something, it makes you better in general by just listening to a fantastic talk by Brian Moriarty, that’s the achievement.
Cos that worked in the past right? Remember when Devs weren't checking error codes so languages added exceptions that were apparently meant to fix that gap. Except for the reality was a lot of empty try/catch blocks, or the errors just getting ignored anyway.
Same thing will happen to unsafe rust once it becomes ubiquitous and we will be back talking about how to fix the problem of stupid coders
Tools can enable diligence, and tools can discourage negligence. There's an all-or-nothing fallacy at work in the suggestion that tools must be perfect at both of these things to be useful in advancing the craft.
A great deal of Rust code need not ever involve the unsafe block, and in these cases there is no great temptation to stray off this path. This is pretty good, imo.
> A great deal of Rust code need not ever involve the unsafe block, and in these cases there is no great temptation to stray off this path
Rust was an attempt to have the compiler manage memory, but they couldn't crack it, so they had to just push all the failures to conquer c style UB under rusts unsafe keyword...
Good codebases already do what rust is doing with the borrow checker, it's not rocket science.
There's a serious argument for cherry picking rusts good parts and Retrofitting them into a more entrenched language.
>Good codebases already do what rust is doing with the borrow checker, it's not rocket science.
Rust allows you to achieve with syntax what these good codebases achieve through diligence. You're right that it isn't rocket science, but it's demonstrably challenging, given that plenty of people get it wrong.
People are certainly trying to bring more safety to existing languages (in various ways), and that's only a good thing.
> Rust allows you to achieve with syntax what these good codebases achieve through diligence
Rustaeceans often play this card... What you should really say is safe rust achieves it through syntax, yet as a systems language you will need to invoke unsafe rust, which by definition is not "memory safe". And memory unsafe is bad right? So bad it's worth changing the language to avoid it.... Yet rust doesnt avoid it?
"which runtime" is a separate discussion from "which package manager"; there's nothing in Node requiring you to use npm (or to rely on external dependencies at all)
But I know you don't truly believe that the only reasonable response to "someone could murder me" is to hole yourself up in a bunker - it'd be a pretty awful way to live! You just think that everything low-trust that you do is justified, without thinking about what a world that operates by these principles would actually look like.
reply