PH95VuimJjqBqy

oh yeah, the article that explains that mistake and failure aren't the same thing doesn't contradict your point that mistake and failure are the same thing.

man, I'm so glad you cleared that up for us...

this is about as perfect an example of the problem as you can have.

it's not clear to me that you read or understood the article, all of your posts certainly feel as if you didn't.

He explained why 0 isn't the goal, you continue to act as if he didn't. I don't know where else this conversation can go without you going back and better understanding his actual point.

there's a reason people say things like "actions speak louder than words".

It's easy to say "safety is about tradeoffs" but then when you follow it up with an insistent that no tradeoffs should be made it kind of makes it seem like you're just saying that to appear reasonable rather than actually being reasonable.

oh snap guys, do you see what he did there in his parley? The way he took my point and pretended I was saying something else and that I really agreed with him. That technique so got me that he won!

This is most definitely the paragon that should be helping us decide which large swathe of people to fuck over.

It's always easy to make a decision when you're not the one paying the cost for it, or don't imagine you will be.

In fact, one of the red flags for decision makers is the inability to understand the above tenet.

We do have information.

the guy is a whistleblower, went to court day 1, missed court day 2, and was found dead in his vehicle of unnatural causes.

attaching the adjective vacuous doesn't actually strengthen your point.

lets not split hairs, if the redundancies kick in then the instrumentation didn't go away.

> That is bad. But not as bad a FBW system bug.

The event in question is better than the plane plummeting out of the sky and killing everyone. That doesn't make it ok for the event to have happened.

If you can't understand how the expense of doing that may be onerous on a business then you shouldn't be let anywhere near decision making.

It's not a non sequitur so much as it was a preparation to make the point I'm about to make.

There is no world in which two institutions with plenty of money, knowledge, and a lack of coercion are going to come to an agreement for a loan with 50% interest.

Theory vs practice. In theory what you're saying could happen, in practice it's only going to happen when one party has a severe imbalance against the other party (and you know this or you wouldn't have tried to head off that argument). Since contract law deals with practice, contract law disagrees with your assessment that it should be allowed.

Which goes back to the whole ownership thing.

Just because someone _can_ draw up a contract to muddy ownership to the point that the seller of a $30k+ USD vehicle can retain control and absolutely limit what the purchaser can do does not mean contract law should allow it.

And there's too much precedence for this sort of thing for you to have a leg to stand on (although I'm sure you'll try). Just because someone _can_ sign a non-compete with no expiration does not mean the law should allow it.

ad nauseum.

Arguing that because contracts today muddy ownership so you can't act as if the purchaser has certain rights is missing the point.

ok that's a scenario I didn't fully consider, lmao.

but humor aside, the point stands. safety/security is about tradeoffs.

> We see no realistic path for an evolution of C++ into a language with rigorous memory safety guarantees that include temporal safety.

The point Herb was making is that "rigorous memory safety" isn't the only bar, nor should it be. Saying there is no way to make C++ have rigorous memory safety is not the same as saying C++ can never be made safe.

> I have to say, this sentence annoys the heck out of me.

> Old code that can't be understood needs to be rewritten anyway.

I don't think it's that old code can't be understood, you can always understand what code is doing mechanically.

it's a question of can you predict the consequences. For example, if I rename this database column, what in our systems that have been built over the last 30+ years will explode? That's data rather than code, but the underlying idea is the same.

What happens is the very act of rewriting it puts you at risk of adverse effects.

perhaps you should try the steelman technique rather than interpreting his words through a lense of negativity.

> Of the remaining crates which use "unsafe", the unsafe code is often contained to a tiny percentage of the code, so if we're looking at the overall amount of unsafe code, you're going from 100%, to a fraction of a percent.

I dislike this argument because rust unsafe code is typically placed into a module with safe code around it protecting it.

Guess how good C++ code is written?

exactly. The unsafe keyword certainly helps but is not a panacea nor a guarantee given that a bug in the safe code that's protecting the unsafe code could be the root cause for security issues, even if it manifests itself in the unsafe code.

how would you define concurrent access to a filesystem?

That's a serious question, if I open a file for reading and another process writes to it, exactly how is the C++ standards supposed to protect against that?

that's how you get companies to stop upgrading and eventually end up sitting on a 20 y/o version of C++.

2nd and 3rd order thinking is a thing.

right, so what you decide to do is quit your job and never leave the house so no one ever has the opportunity to break into your house.

Does the cost of doing so justify being 100% secure?

most people would say no.

> Not to mention the weird conclusion that since no language has 0, that isn't the goal. I'm not sure I understand the logic that you shouldn't at least _try_ to not have any major security flaws.

He addressed that, the cost of making it to 0 would be too great (C++ would have to break backwards compatibility) so we should try and be inline with other languages instead.

I don't understand why you're acting as if he didn't make the point he made.

does it matter?

under what circumstances is it acceptable for your instrumentation to go away? none is the answer.

If the event was caused by the instrumentation going away it's bad. If the instrumentation went away because of the event, that's also bad.

which makes sense, if someone made an impression on you that impression doesn't disappear in just a few days. At best it may be fuzzier, which could be good or bad.

> The right are known for lying with the truth which makes a good amount of their rhetoric stick.

replace right with humans, the left is also known for lying, which is why both sides are constantly bitching at each other.

The extremes of both sides are just as shitty. One side would create harm via religion, the other side via reputation destruction.

alleged is too strong. There's speculation which seems reasonable given the circumstances.

are we reading through the same set of comments?

I see nothing wrong with people speculating over something like this.

the web is nigh-on unusable without an ad-blocker.

When I was young no one really questioned ads in television shows, when I got to uni I kind of stopped watching anything but cable. Then netflix came out and I dropped cable alltogether. Every once in a while I find myself watching television at someone elses house and the constant ads completely destroy any enjoyment of the entertainment, even if I never really questioned it as a kid.

that's how the web is for people who don't run ad-block. They have no idea what it can be.

What are you talking about, X just works. I haven't had to go diving in and manually configure X in _years_ and I remember when you had to tell X to treat your mouse wheel as an extra button just to get it to work. And I say this as someone who uses exclusively nvidia GPUs.

The most I have to do is set the monitor layout and KDE/gnome work exactly like windows with a graphical UI.

I get it. You prefer wayland, as do many people. You can push wayland without making things up about X. Honestly, if X fixed the screen tearing issue I'm not sure there would be a strong reason to prefer wayland over it other than technical purity.

In other words, you think it's ok to insist on a contract with a loan for 50% interest.

I, and many others, disagree and think that's a heinous abuse despite the argument that both parties willingly entered into the agreement.

it's telling that all of your counterexamples involve the government when the entire discussion is around what non-government 3rd parties are allowed to dictate.

Tesla is not the government. Toyota is not the government.

stop it.

What's actually being discussed is the level of authoritarian control software has enabled to non-governmental entities in our lives and how it's so complete that it offers a level of control that not even violence can achieve.

For example, you offer up that just because I own a car doesn't give me the right to murder people with it (stupid, but you went for it so let's roll with it). The level of control being exerted by software is such that I couldn't _stop it_ from happening regardless of my ownership status if a 3rd party decided it wanted my vehicle to murder people.

the ownership thing is a red-herring from someone who is trying really hard to be smart but they're missing the point entirely.

Put another way, It's the tail wagging the dog. "You don't _really_ own it, therefore 3rd parties have the right to exert that level of control over you" when what's being protested is the level of control being afforded 3rd parties. ownership is just the mechanism.

you can't legally create a contract that allows you to charge 50% interest on a loan. You shouldn't be able to create a contract that allows a 3rd party to dictate what you can, and cannot do, with a vehicle they sold you. That should remain solely in the hands of the government (which is why your car murdering people analogy was stupid).

or, and this is a crazy thought, when someone pays for something they expect to have the right to do what they want with it. When a 3rd party is able to exert absolute control in hampering that ability, it becomes a problem.

you purchase a video game from your religious friend and they decide you shouldn't be allowed to play the game between 8pm and 8am and they have the ability to ensure you can't.

their ability to limit you isn't a social construct, it's as strongly bound as physical violence, and that's the problem.