What makes you think that it's "so damn hackable"?
Also, this particular attack requires administrator privileges and bypasses a security boundary that doesn't even exist on e.g. Linux. Linux doesn't have driver signatures and root can easily install a new kernel module.
>It's simple. Human writing is short and to the point (either because they're lazy or want to save the reader's time), yet still manages to capture your attention. AI writing tends to be too elaborate and lacks a sense of "self".
Corporate (and SEO) writing has always been overly verbose and tried to sound fancy. In fact, this probably is where LLMs learned that style. There's no reliable heuristic to tell human- and AI-writing apart.
There's a lot of worry about people being fooled by AI fakes, but I'm also worried about false positives, people seeing "AI" everywhere.
In fact, this is already happening in the art communities, with accusations flying left and right.
People are too confident in their heuristics. "You are using whole sentences? Bot!" I fear this will make people simplify their writing style to avoid the accussations, which won't really accomplish anything, because AIs already can be prompted to avoid the default word-salad style.
Then I'm not sure what you mean by "deterrence". Both of the linked articles argue against increasing the severity of punishment, but they also say that the certainty of getting caught is a strong deterrent.
This doesn't seem to be in conflict with what the GP said ("supporting laws and politicians that catch and punish criminals effectively"). It seems to me that many people have a problem with thieves not being punished at all.
This is a spam video composed of stock footage. It doesn't add any new information, it shows some random wasp species, unrelated to the ones just discovered, and some random scientists (possibly actors).
My reading is that he's very passionate, so he wants to "move fast and break things" and doesn't get why the others aren't necessarily very happy about it.
Back in 2019, many outlets[1] reported that Putin was still using Windows XP. Why? Because in a publicity photo, the taskbar on his computer had a blueish color. And some people even came up with theories like "it's because it's the last version that hasn't been backdoored".
The problem is that this isn't true. If you look at the photo in full resolution[2], it's clear that it was Windows 7 (or maybe even 8 with a Start menu mod).
Apparently there are all kinds of goodies in that dump, like previously unknown betas of MS-DOS and OS/2, but there are no links to the dump itself. It's a shame that the community is so secretive about this :(
>There will be four ways in which ISA systems will work to slow the vehicle down, and it will be up to the manufacturers to pick which one they want to use. The EU regulations permit a system that can use a cascaded acoustic warning, a cascaded vibrating warning, an accelerator pedal with haptic feedback, or a speed control function in which the speed of the vehicle will be gradually reduced.
This is more like a "speed warner" than a "speed limiter".
This could have been AMD, but they choose to sabotage themselves with half-baked APIs that don't even support all of their GPUs. Hell, ROCm didn't even support Windows until recently.
This person's entire argument is that the (A)GPL is "viral", and therefore companies have no right to relicense the software they own the copyright for, and they should be sued.
He doesn't quote any specific part of the (A)GPL that supports his argument (frankly, I doubt he's ever read it), he just keeps throwing out the buzzword "viral" as if it means anything. He clearly doesn't understand the concept of CLAs and copyright law in general.
This is a very bad post, and I'm surprised it made the front page.
I don't understand why anyone would see dropping RISC-V support as a move against China. Chinese companies have their fingers in a lot of pies.
They're mainly invested in the ARM ecosystem, companies such as Allwinner, HiSilicon, Rockchip and UNISOC are very successful in this market. They also make x86 CPUs (Zhaoxin) and have developed their own domestic MIPS-derived architecture (LoongArch).
This post makes it seem as if the NSA produced some kind of comprehensive review of programming languages which showed that Delphi is memory safe.
No, what actually happened is they published a short 7-page blurb[1] and it mentions Delphi in a single sentence: "Some examples of memory safe languages are Python, Java, C#, Go, Delphi/Object Pascal, Swift, Ruby, Rust, and Ada."
It's just a single sentence. It doesn't elaborate what specific features of those languages make them memory safe.
Delphi (and Ada) were most likely included on this list by mistake. I wouldn't be surprised if this was a result of some intern googling "memory safe languages".
These two languages are not memory safe. They don't have a garbage collector, borrow checker, or any other equivalent mechanism that eliminates memory errors. They both use manual memory management, which can be partially automated with RAII, just like C++.
>But usually it’s a misunderstanding of what derivative works are. E.g building an extension to a GPL app. Many don’t believe that simply importing a GPL Python module is enough to make your extension have to comply to GPL.
The GPL doesn't explicitly define the concept of derivative work. The FSF's interpretation is that linking creates a derivative work, but there's no universal consensus among lawyers on this issue.
Also, this particular attack requires administrator privileges and bypasses a security boundary that doesn't even exist on e.g. Linux. Linux doesn't have driver signatures and root can easily install a new kernel module.