jrochkind1

That MacOS hasn't removed from OS-level /etc/ssl seems like a big deal, affecting more than just OS-supplied git. Is /etc/certs not used by most graphical Mac software, I guess? The chaotic state of OS-level cert management, on Linux as well, is pretty dismaying.

If Apple is still trying to brand themselves as security-forward, you'd think removing the revoked CA certs from /etc in a system update would be a pretty easy thing to do?

I'm not sure what you mean by "attested" there, it's doing a lot of work.

Certainly there are specific propositions that someone will or has attested to that a god exists that will punish you for believing in the Christian god.

Sure, if you insist there is more reason to suspect the existence of the Christian god than other gods, then your decision is already made for you; it was not my understanding that Pascal's wager was based on that assumption, but I guess it was implicitly, sure, while explicitly claiming to be based on a clean slate of assumptions. Which makes it even sillier.

Or maybe he'd even penalize you for it.

It's important to recall that an all-knowing God isn't necessarily very compassionate, or even rational. Some of the people I've known who knew the most have been the biggest assholes. Or insane.

What if there's a god, but he punishes humans for believing he exists, just for fun? Where's your wager now?

Buying for dividends?

It doesn't sound like they got them via a shell environment, they just hacked into the place that stored them. If the place you store secrets can be hacked into, it doesn't really matter if they are injected into environment variables or not.

It's acknowledging that reverts are in fact tough on morale, even though better than letting faulty features with rough edges through. I thought it was kind of clever way to just start out acknowledging that everyone's worried about the revert rate, even though the maintainers say it's okay.

If you'd like to share, what aspects of it did you intend as conciliatory?

it's humorous that he thinks that letter was "conciliatory".

i'll even help post bail!

oh no, they'll prosecute you for bagging burito bot anyway, but I'll still play.

I look forward to running into you and getting one for free, just to clear up any concern I hereby give you advance permission to put it over my head when I don't respond to your question! So long as you don't tie it shut after and put me in the back of a van or anything like that, just a dainty easily removed placement.

I think that actually would be much more likely to result in a charge that would be harder to defend against, by intentionally interfering with someone else's property in a more physical/touch way. computer programmers are among the ones who mistakenly that think a charade where you pretend like you might think the robot can respond and say "no thanks" (and weren't really giving them out for free to anyone else) is a legal defense. The law does not work that way.

I have seen people discussing the fact that AI can literally find an infinite number of bugs. There are always more bugs to be found, whether they would have ever affected any actual real world case or been noticed or not.

I think it's a frequent misconception that the AI version is going to be clearer or more well-structured or easier to read or understand than what you would write as a non-native-English speaker. It's probably not.