seebs

I don't know about "need", but it's certainly common to reach out to them... But that doesn't mean that they respond quickly. Google does not have a rep for reliably getting back to people quickly or even at all, and when they do get back to people, they very often just say they can't comment, because there's no way for the people handling the press contact to reach a person who would know what was going on in a predictable manner. (Yeah, that sounds stupid. It is. And yet, nonetheless, you can regularly find that no one at Google can figure out who owns something or knows why it's the way it is.)

I'm super hyped about this, I've been working on this for the last couple-few years and I'm optimistic about the return to being primarily an open-source thing.

No, it did not used to be that "all forums had pervasive doxxing and swatting". That has never been true. It has never been widespread. Heck, swatting as we know it today wasn't even remotely common until quite recently, and doxxing has been actively frowned on and treated as potentially criminal since, like, the 80s.

I dunno what you think you're arguing, but it's nonsense.

Okay, but consider that I might be better off with a machine that approves or disapproves based on credit history and credit score than a banker who won't lend to me unless I get my husband's signature because he doesn't think women should be making choices about money without their husband's approval. (But who wouldn't even blink at loaning money to a man without his wife's signature.)

Someone pointed out an obvious one: You can open the file "/dev/mem" or equivalent on many Unix systems and break things horribly, and rust can't tell that you're doing it or stop you. Someone used this to write an unsafe-free transmute, which is probably at least two different war crimes.

I doubt the rust team will try to "fix" that.

You say it "comes off as part of an effort ... to mount another attack". Maybe it does to you, but I don't know why. I've never heard of this "fierce and dirty" competition between young languages. I've never seen anything even a bit like that. I've only seen fierce fighting between advocates of large well-established languages.

Xe's post struck me as accurate at the time, and having that context to compare with makes V look a little better now, because it at least establishes that progress is being made towards those claims.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that this is based on some kind of sinister "personal agenda" other than "this thing sounds interesting, I investigated it, it seems less cool now", which is a pretty defensible position for someone to reach.

It's not hard to articulate why: Nearly all the large numbers are beyond what anyone can actually pay. If you assume that the bet pays out at most 4 billion dollars, and simply can't pay more than that, suddenly the expected value is $32, instead of "infinite".

Remember, crime is just surprise pentesting with an ad hoc payment model.

But also remember, surprise pentesting with an ad hoc payment model is crime.

If you make concessions in a circumstance like this, you just have the same problem again in a few years. If doing this gets Putin anything at all that he wants, it will keep happening. We know this because it already did, more than once, and because we've all seen it before many times. Every concession made strengthens Putin and reinforces his desire to keep trying this.

If Ukraine's goal is to exist, concessions of any kind at all to Putin make that harder. It's not "because Russia is wrong" that I don't think they should make concessions. It's because, if they make concessions, Russia will try again, because it worked.

Also, I think you're massively overestimating the strength of Russia's position here.

It may be, but you may rest assured that when a recruiter asks me whether I'd like to work for Amazon, how they treat warehouse employees is going to be a factor in my answer. I've never been confident of the viability of "it's fine, they only hate other people" as a social strategy.

Do you think this applies in general to questions of legal liability, or is this one unique? If it's unique, why should anyone think that this case is unique? If you think in general it's "not hard" to know things about legal liability, either you're Elle Woods or you're an extremely overconfident fool.

Lying is a reasonably fundamental part of research, but lying to humans can hurt them in various ways, and that's why we have human research ethics rules and standards that require an explicit process for obtaining consent to do something, even if we can't say what in advance, and debriefing and harm mitigation.

Which the IRB missed because they didn't understand that, to ask questions about a website's policy, you must get an answer from a human.

The reason for this isn't "cowardice", though. I've read a lot of things by practicing people in the field on reasons for which they don't think human challenge trials produce reliable enough data. (Basically: You don't get a representative sample, and you get an unrepresentative sample in ways that are very likely to result in you getting bad data.) There's other reasons to distrust them, and I don't think your assumption that "an absolute minimum of risk" is really on the table is even defensible. And on the whole I think we probably should be using them anyway, with caveats -- but your argumentation here is bad.