Well you do need language support, as in many languages you have no protection between components. So while you might not be able to directly open a file, you can get the rest of the program to open a file for you.

Also things like, for example a text-editor, would be rather pointless if they couldn't open and modify your files. If they can do that, they can also encrypt them easily.

Yes, but first of all, how are you going to do that on a module basis for programming languages? Second has there ever been an instance of this actually preventing malware?

I mean look at mobile devices. Those are the most disease riddled devices a normal person has. Even apps you use to access services you pay for are full of third party tracking malware.

It's a concept that sounds nice in theory, and does have _some_ security benefit, but it's by far not sufficient to reign in malware.

Sandboxing is no solution since software actually needs to do stuff.

You cannot contain malware that way, and mobile platforms are a great example where this fails. Any app can just bully its user into giving it the permissions it wants to have.

... why should I assume they'll actually put any work into work?

On the other side, if the potential employer uses AI to screen the applications, why should I want to work there?

The main problem is that "Registries" make the problem of dependencies seem easy. Dependencies are a problem, you trust in code you didn't write. That's why in older environments those dependencies either are managed by your distribution (which will do some minor amount of checking) or installing them is some effort. (though not that much)
This effectively deters you from using dependencies unless it _really_ makes sense. You install a dependency because you want to speak a complex protocol or you need some highly optimized algorithm. You don't use a dependency for "leftpad".

Having "self service" registries is not a solution for this. It only lowers the burden to depend on code.

...have such insecure repos. I mean you wipe out one class of security issues to allow for another much harder to contain class of security issues. Programming languages should have solid standard libraries and any kind of additional library should be installed either via the distribution, where there are minimal checks, or manually, where it hurts.

Diesel heaters seem impractical. If I understand you correctly you want to burn the Diesel. That means you'll somehow need to put the Diesel inside the bus, or install overhead Diesel lines, or have huge Diesel tanks at every charging station.

It seems easier to erect some sort of "shed" to put the bus in and heat that lightly.

Considering that those few companies that make a profit with AI actually don't need "state of the art" GPUs... that may be a fair deal.

Essentially Big-"Tech" is putting a bit of money into them (typically a tiny amount) since that means they "believe" that they will need high amounts of power in the following years. That way they they believe that the current AI-bubble is not a bubble and that it's sustainable.

In reality those contracts are often for the power produced from those generators. So when the AI bubble will burst, they will no longer need that power. Alternatively (or in combination) those SMRs will never reach a point where they can compete economically against wind, solar and battery storage. Solar, wind and storage are getting cheaper by the month, after all.

Well but typically those batteries are _extremely_ oversized. You could easily get around with just half of a full charge.

Also since cars mostly stand around parking, you could easily get a few charge cycles out of them so you can earn more money.

There are comparatively huge batteries just sitting around doing nothing. The impact on their life is tiny and the metal casing they sit in is going to have turned into rust long before they become unusable.

Now of course the sensible way to go over this would be to make those people participate in the profits the grid provider gets from storing cheap and free electricity and selling it again when it's expensive, but this is end-term capitalism.

... it's entirely plausible Apple just gave them access under the condition that they claim they didn't do it.

... the attacker controls both ends. Nothing stops Apple or Google from just taking screen shots of those messages for selected end users. You don't need a lot of code for that, you could easily hide it everywhere. You do not even need lists of user-ids since you can obscure those away with a bloom filter.

It's in the 400-500 Watt peak range.

Here's just one example:
https://preisvergleich.heise.d...

The point is that Big-"Tech" is not trying to get cheap electricity. If they wanted that, they'd invest in solar, wind and storage.

The point is that they know that the AI-bubble will burst, but they cannot admit it... as that would make the AI bubble burst immediately. After the burst they will need a lot less power as the profitable bits of it are a) just a small fraction, and b) tend to not need frontier models or huge data centers.
Now by "investing" in some questionable technology, like "SMRs" or other types of nuclear reactors, they can pretend that they invest in the future of AI, therefore pretend to believe that the bubble will not burst. In reality they typically have fairly small investments and perhaps some letter of intent to purchase power from them... should the project ever come to a point where it generates electrical power. Instead they are betting on those questionable companies failing so they can make a clean exit.

It's all signaling to investors.