mike_hock

A poorly documented or undocumented (debugging) backdoor in a chip marketed for ATMs and medical hardware, enabled by default, at the very least qualifies as reckless endangerment.

Great article for April 1st! No, wait. It's August 7th. Wat.

I already have a second usable device and I don't mind the extra weight that much most of the time. It's called a laptop computer.

As soon as we get to a point that Linux on the phone works at all, I'm happy to switch completely.

Here, "it works" literally just means it works. Not "GPS doesn't work," "camera only half works," "interop with Android/iOS apps that you're forced to use doesn't work." That doesn't mean "it works." And of course "only works for 2-3 years and then the device gets abandoned" doesn't mean "it works" either.

Thanks, I guess :D

It's not actually vulnerable.

You're absolutely right. I made a critical error. It's NOT vulnerable.

It' actually vulnerable.

You're absolutely right. I made a critical error. It IS vulnerable.

It's not actually vulnerable.

You're absolutely right. I made a critical error. It's NOT vulnerable.

> I've been able to formally verify that the Rust behavior is identical to the Postgres C behavior

I thought you wanted to get rid of the bugs!

I think this a positive effect of LLMs, especially once these capabilities get into the hands of criminals and hostile foreign states, i.e. they will do maximum damage with all the safeties off.

This will force everyone to finally take security seriously at both the development and operational levels. You can no longer keep sneaking backdoors into software and count on them remaining hidden for 10 years so you have a nice portfolio of zero days to exploit at any given time.

Thanks for the honest, load—bearing emojis.

Thanks for the PSA but I already knew that I wasn't gonna touch it with a ten foot pole.

> What if <common sense>?

I find it baffling that some people had to find this out the hard way. You already knew that it's — if not more work — then at least more tedious to study existing code than write your own.

People have been choosing greenfield rewrites over grokking legacy code since forever.

I don't buy that minor being "sad" is all nurture and no nature. No matter what tempo or rhythm you put on it or what instruments you use to play it, it may not sound sad, it may sound dramatic and powerful instead, but it never sounds upbeat and happy the way major does (or at least can).

It has been tacked on as a "totally not an integer" type because the integer system isn't extensible enough to accommodate it.

It could of course be added with an ABI break (bumping intmax_t to int128), but that's not being done because it would be an ABI break. Hence, not extensible in practice.

> C has a confusing array of machine-dependent types such as ptrdiff_t and size_t

What's confusing about them? They're basically what int and unsigned int were supposed to be. It's just that they realized they had produced a pile of unextensible shit so they had to add new names.

While they were at it, they produced the next version of unextensible shit so now int128 can't be added.

> You think the average user is going to explicitly whitelist

When prompted by the browser on first login/signup, yes, the same way the password manager works. With stored passwords, keeping the login cookie doesn't even add much value.

No, but it's the obvious starting point. You can then put additional laws on top banning fingerprinting out of band (if you care about window dressing), fund development of anti-fingerprinting technologies, fund Tor, run exit nodes in a transparent and publicly auditable fashion, etc.

It's not hard to make privacy work when you are the government rather than working against a hostile one.