Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Shout it from the rooftops (Score 1) 39

Well, I wouldn't trust a screwdriver to plant a nail. Not because the screwdriver is "untrustworthy", but because it's the wrong tool for the job.

Same here. If you don't want buffer overflows and threading issues, C++ is a pretty poor choice for the job. Rust was designed to address precisely these kinds of problems.

Comment Re:Shout it from the rooftops (Score 1) 39

But (a) it's written in Rust because Mozilla didn't trust C++

It was not that they did not trust C++ (itself) but it is easier to verify the rust implementation (because rust does a lot of the memory safety checks at compile time), and there is a long long long history of codecs having memory safety issues. One less potential future exploit is always a good thing (one should note that rust does not protect against logic errors, so the code may still be wrong, just potentially less wrong).

So... they didn't trust C++ for this job.

Comment Re:First and foremost... (Score 1) 121

The problem with this argument, from the shop's point of view, is that the UK is in the middle of a shoplifting epidemic. The policing resources simply aren't there to deal with small scale (or even flagrant and much larger scale) shoplifting. It now seems to be rare for police officers to attend reports of shoplifting at all. And so effectively shoplifting becomes legalised, which is obviously hurting the big chain stores financially and potentially devastating for smaller shops.

Shops are trying to find some way to respond to this to protect themselves. They typically tell staff, even security staff, not to get physical with shoplifters as they walk out, not least because the risk of something worse happening and the business becoming liable for it is significant. But then the shoplifters know this and some of them will just walk in and openly empty a shelf into a bag and walk out again without paying because they know no-one will try to stop them.

Shops also know that our court system is completely overwhelmed at the moment and there is little chance of bringing any successful civil action to recover damages from shoplifters who aren't even being arrested by the police and put through the criminal justice system.

So what do they have left? Basically, they're trying to spot the "usual suspects" and refuse them entry in the first place, which is a less risky proposition in terms of potential for physical violence and quite effective because a lot of shoplifting is done by the same people, or they're trying to make it more physically difficult to steal goods, for example by using locking systems or keeping high value items behind counters where customers can't just pick them up. But these systems aren't perfect, far from it, and what we're discussing here today is one of the significant problems.

Obviously this kind of technology can have very bad consequences, as we see here. I don't think it should be used if it's not highly reliable, given the potential harm done in cases where it gets something wrong. But I do have some sympathy with the shops who are looking for something -- anything -- to reduce the threat they're facing because the rule of law has failed in retail settings.

Comment Re:I initially dismissed the idea of agents (Score 1) 54

I don't think I could have been more wrong.

On the contrary, I think most of your comment is as relevant as ever. A carefully designed UI is still better for almost any specific task than what "agents" will produce. It will probably be more efficient to describe what you want precisely enough to get it right. It will not be undermined by problems like non-repeatability, non-determinism and hallucinations that are inherent in LLM-backed agents.

Agents can be quite effective at getting something that seems about right, as long as you don't care too much about the details. And of course they get there much quicker than doing it manually as a human. This is useful for some tasks, and why they have become popular.

Unfortunately, it turns out that for many of the things we really care about, "about right" doesn't cut it. Right now, today, the software industry is already being overwhelmed by AI slop. It's hard to believe, but it's still only been a few months since agentic development processes arrived on the scene. And yet after just those few months of management trying to replace real developers with agents, we can see the slow-motion train wreck happening right before our eyes. And in return, where are the new applications that radically improve on what we had before thanks to all this added "productivity"? If this tech is going to change the world as the AI tech bros and the sycophantic CxOs kneeling at their feet would have us believe, where's my flying car?

Comment Re:Zoom Should Not Be Trusted (Score 1) 12

It's silly that a browser sandbox is better than any native sandbox available.

It is. The fact that our dominant desktop operating systems are still using security models from last century is probably the #2 disaster of modern tech security, coming in just behind so much software with potential security implications still being written in languages like C and C++ at #1. And the understandable yet still deeply regrettable reason for both disasters is the same: momentum.

Comment Re:Zoom Should Not Be Trusted (Score 1) 12

I normally connect to all online conference calls via their web UIs. At least then it takes both a screw-up in the communications system and a screw-up in a browser security sandbox that is independently developed to allow something like an RCE or data leakage vulnerability to be exploited.

People have called me crazy for not wanting to install native apps from the likes of Microsoft, Google and Zoom in the modern era of remote working, but every now and then, there's another story like this one that reminds me why I am extremely careful about what native software I install on anything these days.

Comment Re:Makes no sense (Score 1) 177

This is absurd on so many levels.

To start with, it's not like the lawsuit has anything to do with what state they're based in. The California AG happens to be leading it, but it's a coalition of 12 states. It's not as if they could escape the suit by moving to another state. This is purely a pressure tactic, nothing more.

I believe they can. States can only sue companies that operate in their state. If Paramount moves to a state that isn't in that coalition, the other 12 will have a difficult time collecting.

Actually moving would be incredibly expensive. Build entirely new studios. Relocate all their employees. Lose a whole lot of employees who don't want to relocate.

And exactly who's going to employ all those who refuse to move? California unemployment isn't exactly stellar these days.

And anywhere else they moved to would be a worse place. They're located in Los Angeles because that's the heart of the film industry. That's where the workers are. That's where all the other companies that support the industry are. Trying to operate in Georgia or Tennessee would be much harder for them.

Your information is...dated. There are thriving film industries in Georgia, for example. It got so good California got scared of it. Granted, things have scaled back a bit in recent years, but that's tracking the overall decline of the film industry. LA is even worse.

Even if they somehow decided it made sense to move, that's not a decision you make quickly or lightly. It would take long and careful planning to choose a new location and prepare for the move. But here he is, saying they're going to start moving in less than two months, and he hasn't even decided what state to move to. Is anyone really supposed to take this seriously?

Please, don't take it seriously. Then, when it happens, it'll be far more shocking.

If in spite of everything he really tries to go through with this, expect a shareholder lawsuit and calls for the board to fire him. But he'd have to be crazy to really do it.

Shareholders have this odd habit of wanting their CEO to do things that increase the profitability of the company. Given how many businesses are fleeing the anti-business climate of California for Florida, Texas, and other business-friendly states -- and thriving in those new states -- they might just give him a raise.

Comment Re: drop in the bucket (Score 1, Insightful) 177

Why do you people have so many weird fantasies about California? Obsessed much? It's fucking weird, dude.

No state has ever gone bankrupt. California's economy is the fourth largest in the world.

Take your meds. Reconnect with reality.

And yet, with all that economy, they still can't make budget

One could be forgiven for saying they can't afford to lose a single dollar of potential tax revenue.

Comment Re:Ouch (Score 1) 72

You always shoot first and ask questions later?

No, I read the details explicitly quoted at the start of the discussion and responded to them.

Are you saying that this episode has not in fact resulted in (a) unplanned software being installed on end devices that will (b) automatically read data that is stored on those devices without the proper approvals? Either of those things alone can easily become a compliance problem if you operate in a regulated environment, whether or not things ultimately go any further on this occasion.

Comment Ouch (Score 4, Insightful) 72

It was obnoxious enough when Microsoft started pushing this kind of unwanted "feature" on home users, then small businesses and professionals on Pro editions. There are real legal and regulatory concerns over this kind of change that businesses have to take seriously. If they've screwed up so badly that even their large corporate customers have been hit by the same thing and there isn't even a good way to undo the damage at the moment, this could lead to meaningful lawsuits from their customers and/or interventions by regulators.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Don't discount flying pigs before you have good air defense." -- jvh@clinet.FI

Working...