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.