jwatzman

No — the victim app is code signed and the permissions and keychain access are tied to the cryptographic identity used to code sign. Replacing or wrapping or whatever here must happen with a different cryptographic identity (unless you actually exploit the victim app itself which is a whole different thing).

Not sure I understand the risk here, and seem to agree with Apple this is a non-issue. You already have code execution in order to exploit this. You don’t get the cryptographic identity of the victim app so you can’t steal keychain secrets. How is this any different than just bundling your own second-stage malware with a victim bundle ID, then using your existing code execution to remove the quarantine flag and then run the second-stage malware? Or just doing the evil things with your existing code execution?

There are a few others. “Quite” comes to mind — “I am quite hungry” or “that meal was quite good” can mean opposite things, depending on the speaker region and even voice inflexion if spoken.

My prospective co-founders and I were pitching to a VC firm that was, on paper, a really good fit for what we were trying to do. The partner we were pitching to was, 15 years ago, briefly my manager's manager -- some work relationship there, she remembered me and I her, but we didn't work super closely together and it had been a very long time. She had moved on at that company to more big-shot things and ultimately become a partner at a respectable VC firm.

About 10 minutes into the pitch, she cut us off, and basically said -- as absolutely kindly as something like this can be directly said -- "I am not going to invest in this, and furthermore I don't think what you're trying to do is investible at all". Then she took a bunch of her time to run us through why, help us understand some very fundamental things about the VC world we didn't quite have right, and generally be brutal but extremely useful in us framing what we were trying to do.

She didn't have to do that. She could have nodded along and then given us a polite "no" like everyone else. She could have cut us off and given us a rude "no". But she didn't -- she made sure to use the time we had to help us as much as she could, even if she very adamantly was not going to invest.

Not a big gesture or anything, but kind and helpful. There's a lot of that. But it doesn't make headlines.

In Rust, it's considered a bug for any code which isn't using `unsafe` to encounter a memory error (e.g., to segfault). That bug might be in some underlying library (which is itself using `unsafe`), or more rarely in the compiler, but it's a bug and not how Rust is supposed to work.

Does Haskell have any similar line? What is the property that code must have in order for it to be a bug to segfault? Must not call `unsafePerformIO`? Must not call `unsafeCoerce`? (Must not call any function with the `unsafe` prefix?)

In other words, is the segfault here to be considered a bug in the language -- or is unwrapping IO one of the things that, if you do it, you're own your own and may segfault? (Is part of the point of the article is that it is currently considered safe but should not be? Is that a bug in the language or in peoples' expectations?)

Or is a clear line like this not a notion that Haskell has? It's been a long time since I've done any Haskell, though I don't recall any clear guideline like this!

For do not disturb, you can: settings -> focus -> do not disturb has a section at the top for allowing specific apps or specific people.

Glad you liked it! My co-author and I spent some time trying to find a good spread of questions covering different aspects of LLMs. And we were also surprised by how hard it was to convince GPT-4 that Queen Elizabeth II had died a lot of the time. (We found that specifying she died in 2022 helped a lot.)

(co)-author here. It was really interesting putting this together. We had some idea what LLMs/GPT-4 would and would not do well with, but were still surprised ourselves with a number of things. In particular, we knew it would really struggle with the acrostic, but the degree to which it just completely lost the plot was pretty surprising! It was also surprisingly difficult to convince it that Queen Elizabeth II had died in a lot of cases (it takes it better some times than others).