91–100 of 386 posts
> iOS's update model is 1000% better than Android's, which is a massive security improvement against most threat actors (who aren't using artisanal Israeli zero-day exploits). What are the advantages of iOS's update model?
I hate iOS for it's walled garden bullshit but android seems to have found the one way to be worse.
"For example, if you want to see Microsoft have a heart attack, talk about the idea of defining legal liability for bad code in a commercial product." That sort of discussion is quickly dismissed on HN. And probably elsewhere on the web/over the internet. Instead we frequently see discussion blaming users of the software, i.e., Microsoft's customers, or even suggestions to make the customer liable, or comments from "…
Most of the people I went to Uni with ended up in fields where the companies are liable for bad stuff, to a certain degree. It does exist. However: * you get paid a lot less * the companies and industries move very slowly * you spend a lot more time writing long-form, some time just re-using existing stuff wholesale, and almost no time building actually new things I mean like Real Engineering fields. What we do in so…
Nice to see that he linked to rust as a safe alternative to the C's (C, C++, Objective-C). There is a place for Go and Java as well above the system level. Both perform well and are safe.
So thanks for that. This marks the place where I acknowledge my mind was changed about the value of Rust.
[Update] Upon reading [1], I think that memory safety is still vital, but Rust has a very strange and cumbersome way of doing it.
[1] - https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch04-01-what-is-ownership.htm...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the people I went to Uni with ended up in fields where the companies are liable for bad stuff, to a certain degree. It does exist. However: * you get paid a lot less * the companies and industries move very slowly * you spend a lot more time writing long-form, some time just re-using existing stuff wholesale, and almost no time building actually new things I mean like Real Engineering fields. What we do in so…
So called "Real Engineering" fields kill people at such a high rate. Software engineers are way better. Despite all the value created, a vanishingly small number of people have been killed. That's the funny thing. As a software engineer, if I have to build something that might kill someone, I just don't do it. But so-called "real engineers"? Bam, condo building down, people dead. Bridge down, people dead. Tacoma Narr…
Nothing will change
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We tried this with general aviation. Private plane manufacturers all went bankrupt, and now the minimum price for a new airplane is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Apply strict liability to software, and you'll see the same results. Every piece of software will have to be constructed with the care of a medical device. Expect most forms of technological progress to come to a halt. Some part of the HN crowd wi…
I’m reading a book called “An American Sickness” and it discusses medical devices. Turns out a lot of them are pretty poor and often have less testing and verification than most people think. There’s one story about a hip implant that went bad. Turns out the doctor recommending and performing the surgery was also the patent holder and had a vested interest in getting this particular implant in as many patients as pos…
If a company makes a bad implant, it's very visible, but all the potentially improved hip implants that never get built because of the barrier these laws create are invisible.
I'm not going to comment on Snowden's view of what liberal western states do when it comes to surveillance. I have my own opinion, but he's been right about stuff I'd disagreed with him in the past before so I'm gun shy about confronting his ideas again. On the topic of unsafe language though, he's absolutely right. We don't have to put up with this. We could pass a law and ban new code in unsafe languages from natio…
Yes on theme, but no on ”there aught to be a law” that bans C/C++ because of an evolving goal of memory safety.
When Rust++ comes out surely there will be people complaining that Rust isn’t safe, and so on.
Best case is you make the consequence punishable (as was described in the article).
Nothing will change
I'm not going to comment on Snowden's view of what liberal western states do when it comes to surveillance. I have my own opinion, but he's been right about stuff I'd disagreed with him in the past before so I'm gun shy about confronting his ideas again. On the topic of unsafe language though, he's absolutely right. We don't have to put up with this. We could pass a law and ban new code in unsafe languages from natio…
Nice to see that he linked to rust as a safe alternative to the C's (C, C++, Objective-C). There is a place for Go and Java as well above the system level. Both perform well and are safe.
It was in this context for the first time that I saw how Rust was something other than an overly complex replacement for C. I've heard all sorts of things about how it's memory safe, but nobody ever explained why that was important. So thanks for that. This marks the place where I acknowledge my mind was changed about the value of Rust. [Update] Upon reading [1], I think that memory safety is still vital, but Rust ha…