526 karma · joined May 30, 2021
Yes, there can be exploits, but hardware exploits over a restricted interface (TPM2) are significantly rarer then normal software vulns. Everything is about risk mitigation, there is no perfect security.
But I am focusing on maximizing my total comp so I can retire in 10-15 years if I need to. I think most devs are underestimating where this is eventually going to go.
I have worked with C++ almost every day for a decade now, and I’ll be sad to see it go. This is not what the thought leaders should be focusing on at all. If you’re unhappy with std:: expected just don’t use it? Why can’t we focus on fixing the thousands of security vulnerabilities that cause real harm and money and endless developer time to try to work around.
Also nuclear winter is somewhat controversial, I don’t know what the latest model results are.
Edit: here is her talk, at 39 minutes she shares the benchmarks. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QM3W36COnE4
2. The verifier checks memory bounds access, guarantees termination in a certain number of instructions, and restricts function calls to a limited number of helper functions provided by the kernel.
3. BPF code runs on a vm, think like the jvm. It’s impossible to express a lot of nasty stuff given the restrictive bytecode language.
There have been bugs in the verifier, but overall it works very well, the biggest issue being that it drastically limits the complexity of your program.
I know a surprising amount of people who came out of CNSE (without following up with grad school) and are now landscapers, waiters, or similar. The skillset is so specialized as to be almost worthless unless you can find the right role imo. Also the program there CNSE/SUNY Poly is absolute hot garbage, I advise active looking at this field to go into conventional EE, ChemE, or Materials.