dralley

This is the post I responded to

>> The proof this site is misnamed is that a post criticizing systemd gets downvoted, probably by people who have never questioned why an [[ init system ]] needs to become half the operating system.

So no, I didn't bring it up.

I find the whole argument kind of dumb anyway. People talk about this as if it was a violation of the "Unix Philosophy" when Unix and BSD are developed even moreso in the same way - the init system is sitting in the same repo as the libc, the kernel, and the entire rest of the OS. Linux is alone amongst operating systems in making core system components swappable like to that degree in the first place. It's fine to like that kind of flexibility, but a bit silly to act as though that approach is fundamentally superior. If you want to use non-systemd tools, use a non-systemd distro, that is your choice. Just quit whining about 99.9999% of the other software users on the planet not catering to it.

The systemd init isn't half an operating system any more than the coreutils "ls" utility is half a userspace. The systemd project has many different components but they're independent, they are not all literally part of the init system.

I'd be happier if it was 24 hours by default, with an increased timeout configurable behind 2FA.

Most of those don't require fingerprints or photos. Those that require addresses, do so because they're literally billing and/or shipping items to you. And none of them is comparable to physically entering another country.

I, a US citizen, got fingerprinted by passport control in Austria 2 weeks ago, and they took a picture of my face and asked for personal details. That's pretty much how passport control works universally in any developed country, only the "how they get the information" changes. Sometimes they already have it and sometimes they ask for it.

I don't even understand what this comment is supposed to be saying in relation to the previous one.

I've tried both Magnesium Glyconate and Magnesium L-Threonate and both have helped my sleep, Magnesium Citrate did very little. Which makes sense, the latter is known to not be absorbed very well.

I've not noticed any significant difference between the other two.

Here's hoping this screws up the collateralization of the Paramount takeover deal, and the whole thing unravels.

Possible, yes. But it's not like it's terribly difficult to verify correct usage of "unsafe" that amounts to a basic function call to a C library. Trivial uses of unsafe are pretty innocuous.

It's a shame they missed out on the AI server boom.

The same people attacked Iran without a plan for what to do if they closed the Strait of Hormuz

How to tank morale even harder

But how often do people just copy and paste code in the C/C++ ecosystem? Or reimplement things badly? Last I checked VLC had a homegrown XML parser.

>Otherwise, it does not bode well for Rust code because any type safety glitch will be considered a vulnerability.

I mean, this is basically true. And it goes beyond type safety - there have been CVEs filed against the Rust stdlib for TOCTOU problems of a kind that the C++ stdlib is absolutely replete with (often the exact same ones in the exact same places, to the extent that comparable APIs exist) which ended up being fixed quickly in Rust and largely ignored in C++, if anyone bothered to file in the first place.

For sure does create headaches for those who need to categorize CVEs by impact, but on balance I don't think it's a bad thing for the ecosystem. Creating a culture that wants to fix soundness issues rather than mark them as WONTFIX with a line of documentation is a core principle and value proposition of Rust in the first place.

Quoting https://cor3ntin.github.io/posts/safety/

> But the borrow checker is not what makes Rust safe. Rust is safe because it decides to put correctness first by default.

> Rust is safe by culture.

Better to pay a penny to fix it today than a pound to deal with the fallout down the line.

The thing is that if step 2 isn't proprietary, but rather more open source code, then it's not "extinguish" it's just garden variety open source competition.

Considering a substantial fraction of the commit history since then has been removing those instances of "unsafe" not all of are actually usages of "unsafe" (seems like there are a fair number of functions / types with unsafe in the name but not the signature), is that actually still true?

And if nothing else Rust forces you to document where they are, which isn't nothing.

How would that help? These are not general purpose, base system libraries, these are libraries specific to a product that uses them. Either you're not using them and hence they would not be installed in the first place, or you're using them because you have the product installed.

Though I would expect that Insights uses RPM packages to ship components and not the public NPM packages.

Typically BLEVE is used in a petrochemical context, where the hot "boiling liquid, expanding vapor" ignites on contact with oxygen.

There are a number of compiler performance enhancements (and correctness improvements) that are being worked on that are kind of at a chokepoint behind some other piece of work. Unfortunately it's not that easy to discern what state they're in or how quickly they're making progress.

At some point though a lot of work will be able to start advancing at once, so long as people exist to do the work.

e.g. https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-project-goals/2026/parallel...

And yet, that hasn't translatd into additional support for Ukraine. In fact, Russian oil sanctions are lifted for the second month in a row, and Congress Republicans haven't put a Russian sanctions bill on the table because Trump doesn't want one.

The existence of other influences does not diminish the fact that Trump is enamored with Putin (and most "strong man" dictators generally, but Putin in particular) and it does impact his foreign policy decisions and those of his administration (Hegseth straight up canceled weapons shipments to Ukraine for 2 weeks in the aftermath of the Oval Office meeting thinking it would please the boss).

Because that's exactly what it was. I agree with you, the puritanism around special effects doesn't make sense when there's plenty of high quality archival footage out there, and instead of using that or CGI to look similar, you do something that looks completely wrong.

If you use unsafe improperly, it is possible to encounter UB in "safe" code which relies on the unsafe code being correct.

>There are well-known tools in the Rust ecosystem that detect this kind of error

Yes, tools like Miri, which this very post is about.

There is a significant difference between being able to see one flaw and being able to chain together multiple disparate flaws, to be fair.

As a matter of fact he has mentioned that one of the Jacob's Ladder videos was the only time he messed up and came close to actually electrocuting himself (by reflexively trying to grab the leads as they fell off a table). Otherwise all of the shocks are "calculated" to be nonharmful.

Not really though. That's like saying that no language is "safe" because the compiler could have a bug.

It's true that safe wrappers around unsafe code sometimes have bugs in them, but it's orders of magnitude easier to get the abstraction right once than to use unsafe correctly in many places sprawled across a large codebase.

A tiny fraction of programs need to use win32 or Mac OS functions beyond the standard library or other safe wrappers for said functions.

I have had none of those issues on Fedora 44, FWIW.

Still probably the safest herbicide, mainly because the competition (organophosphates, etc.) is so much worse.

> Elite security researchers find bugs that fuzzers can’t largely by reasoning through the source code. This is effective, but time-consuming and bottlenecked on scarce human expertise. Computers were completely incapable of doing this a few months ago, and now they excel at it. We have many years of experience picking apart the work of the world’s best security researchers, and Mythos Preview is every bit as capable. So far we’ve found no category or complexity of vulnerability that humans can find that this model can’t.