dwattttt

How big is that gap? It was published publically in the last week.

Sure. But the heuristic the TaaS world is using isn't something as absurd as "allocates 3 pages", it's "uses undocumented system APIs". We're also not arguing in the abstract that "they might make a stupid determination in the future", they're making this determination now.

I'm not a fan of the the security industry's practices, but I can't say they're making a malicious/stupid choice here.

"standard normal" isn't the same as "normal"; standard normal defines the mean & variance (0 & 1 respectively), but normal distributions can have any mean & variance.

You need a measure of variance to perform that kind of estimate. There's scenarios where 98% of results land within 3-5% of a value, and the 14% is extremely unlikely. And scenarios where the variance is high, and it's much more likely. (you can also be wrong about what you think the variance is)

Because you want someone who trusts that different piece of software to use yours.

Zig's decision here means the problem is _yours_ to convince this third party to trust you.

From the link:

> > Won't this get flagged by anti-virus scanners as suspicious?

> Unfortunately, yes. We consider this a problem for the anti-virus scanners to solve.

I am suddenly less interested in relying on Zig.

If you make it easy for lots of people to make the fuel, yes. EVs and smaller scale power generation anyone?

> A lot of testing and verification was avoided in the past because it wasn’t considered nearly as valuable as shipping code.

AI is changing how the code is written, but I'm not seeing anything at all changing the incentives around testing and verification.

This is the same highly verifiable domain that has delivered reliable, bug-free software to date?

And LLMs won't take the easy way out (like so many people) and suppress errors, change tests etc, tweak code until warnings go away?

I can't tell what you're saying; are you saying that "yearly revenue from fares is big", even when someone says "fares aren't the major revenue source, and sometimes doesn't even exceed the cost to implement"?

> Rust is not a production language

Your argument was that the only Rust projects there are are little developer tools, so Rust isn't a production language. When pointed out there are large projects that every day users rely on that use Rust, and not just in corners of the codebase, code that's exercised by approximately all users, you insist it's still not production?

You.. doubt that people use Firefox, Chrome, Windows, or Android? That it must be "attention" that's the reason those projects have Rust in them now?

Rust is in use in more places than you may expect. Does the hypothetical grandma use Windows' kernel? Android? Firefox? Chrome?

> Apple's ecosystem depends on every middle-class person around the globe

I have terrible news about the distribution of iPhones and the middle class globally.