xydone

Yeah, I get that, I'm just unconvinced that using lower level, less documented APIs, which are not necessarily meant to be the way users interact with the system, is a good heuristic for malware detection.

I'm ignoring the fact that very few people in the world need an antivirus (other than maybe elderly/less technologically knowledgeable people, but even then I'm not sure they can be fully protected)

But the trust as a service (TaaS) platform could decide tomorrow that you are not trustworthy because, I don't know, it matched a pattern in a piece of ransomware which is actually a pattern you can produce by allocating 3 pages of memory in one call. Should you as a language now put compile time guarantees that 3 pages cannot be allocated?

This is obviously a ridiculous example, but what I'm aiming to say is, if a piece of software is matching something as untrustworthy when it's not, you shouldn't chase it down to force the little guy who's maxing good will software to fix it because the big bully thinks they are evil and deserve to get quarantined

Why should you design your software around what a different piece of software could claim of your program?

I agree with what you are saying, but I'm not sure how much of if applies to JetBrains. They were on the beneficiary side of the same system that flipped their world around for the longest time. I don't feel that bad for them.

They should probably invent some sort of Crypto Miner Communication Protocol (CMPC) that will make the process easier for all miners out there. Let's hope most are not bad actor crypto miners who ignore the protocol though, we should strive for more good actor crypto miners.

The union of hosters which will not update to this patch, and users who have not updated to the past 283762 CVE is literally the same circle. I think that maybe a couple new not infected machines will get infected with a cryptominer - the rest will just get one new miner fighting for resources

What a strange thing to say

git push --force. No time for the lease either

I've seen boilerplate be brought up as an argument very frequently and I keep wondering, what sort of boilerplate do you deal with that it is a considerable time sink? I feel like most languages and frontend frameworks have a pretty established template project which gets you going as far as boilerplate goes. When it comes to backend it's more of the same. When it comes to gamedev, you have established game engines which cut down on the boilerplate process. If you are writing your own engine in something like Vulkan which require a lot of pre-game ritual, there are still plenty of template projects to get you started, but they are more surface level than the frontend/backend examples due to the nature of the project. If you are working on popular hardware, like arduinos, esp32s, there are established template projects for most languages. And if you are working on a niche language or framework for which this doesn't apply, then roughly by the second project in them you'll find yourself just copying over the boilerplate from the first.

So I'm genuinely curious, what sort of things do people who complain about boilerplate ceremonies do?

C compiler != C replacement

Were the copyright owners contacted prior to this lawful obtaining that you speak of? Or after?

Luddites, the group of people which famously were concerned about societal impact of a piece of technology? Right.

Yeah, that's also fine. However I am personally willing to side with the group which's arguments for the cause are environmental and societal impact over the one which's rebuttal to that is the fact we were wrong once 40 years ago. That's just me though.

I have a feeling that comparing a safe, sustainable energy source to large language models is disingenuous. If you support LLMs and the field, you can just state it outright, without insincere comparisons.

Maybe people just like the language