Veserv

Adequate is making it uneconomical, or cost ineffective, for threats to your organization to attack you either deliberately or indiscriminately. Absent a specific organization, we can use a profile of commonplace, prevailing threats as a proxy. A profile of commonplace threats is, as I said before, a profit-motivated, commercial, professional group seeking a multi-million dollar payout and thus being profitable at a cost of a few million dollars per commercial target. That is "adequate" in the prevailing threat landscape if you are the "average" organization.

Computer security has largely been built on the “not enough bears” theory.

Every target is worth attacking, but there are not enough bears to eat everybody. Sure, the bears are breeding, but exponential growth does not look threatening until it suddenly is.

Neither is correlated with good security outcomes against the prevailing threat landscape of profit-motivated, commercial, professional attackers with tiny budgets of a few million dollars. The standard is not "better", it is "adequate".

I do not see how that is relevant. Are you saying that trivial cross-tenant compromises are not egregious security failures demonstrating their systems are unfit for purpose because other companys make products that have even more egregious security failures that are even more unfit for purpose?

My bridge that collapses is adequate and acceptable because other people make even worse bridges that collapse even easier? No, the bridge still collapses, everybody gets a F.

The one the people implementing the spell-checker want. I am describing a mechanism for change, not the policy.

It is a mechanism that is far more practical and likely to succeed at broad reform than their plan of convincing magazine editors and instagram models.

If they really want to reform English spelling, they should write a spell-checking library in every major programming language that builds on every major platform and can be easily integrated into chat, message, and mobile keyboard applications which defaults to “English 20xx”, but still supports default English.

All it would need to do is not highlight “improved spellings” as incorrect in “English 20xx” mode at the start. Then it could slowly turn the knob as they see increasing usage.

If you want to do even more then you can implement speech-to-text and transcript generators that default to “English 20xx”.

"as if" is what semantically identical means. As I further clarified: "All observable and defined side effects should be identical otherwise you have a compiler bug."

The output program does what the input source code does. The abstraction is a precise translation and non-leaky, it just admits multiple possible internals. That does not make the translation any less precise.

Which is a strawman. They are clearly attempting to say that a compiler is supposed to generate a program that is semantically identical to the source code.

All observable and defined side effects should be identical otherwise you have a compiler bug. Optimizations that are not generically semantics preserving may be used, but should only be used where the program is semantically identical for your use case otherwise you have incorrectly used the options available in your compiler.

They literally trotted out Hanlon’s razor as a moral argument that we should not blame Meta since it was probably just a whoopsie-doodle. This is a very common moral argument that people implicitly make or explicitly advance when using it.

I am pointing out how that is a absurd moral argument deriving from the rule of thumb. If anything, the corollary is the literal opposite.

Any stupidity indistinguishable from malice should be treated the same.

The usage as a epistemological rule of thumb just points out how great harm is usually caused by stupidity, intentional or otherwise, rather than intentional desire to cause the specific harm. If you aim to reduce great harms targeting just malice is not merely inadequate, it is likely missing the overwhelming majority.

No. Hanlon’s razor explains that stupidity can cause the same amount of harm as intentional evil and is thus just as bad.

If harms are excused because they were not made with evil intentions then the Nazis who just liked making the numbers go up in a orderly fashion should be considered blameless.

If you knew that, then why did you think your statement:

> Every Tesla ever made has a door release that doesn't require any electricity.

Was a valid response to the comment you replied to:

> Like the people who get trapped in case of accident when the electricity fail and is burned inside?

Implying others are making untrue statements by making intentionally deceptive statements is very rude.

What, your ad provider would just need to indemnify you for the consequences of their own fuckups. This is pretty basic stuff.

As for the ad provider, it is trivial to not deliver criminal payloads if your business starts from the assumption that doing so is costly instead of something you can foist on society for your own benefit.

I mean, they still have not figured out school bus stop signs after, what, 6 years of furious development? They consider that fit for commercial deployment even after it hospitalized that kid coming out from a school bus with the stop sign extended (SGO incident number 13781-5100) after being made aware of the safety defect.

Why would they feel the need to handle garden variety illegal behavior like school speed limits?