Comment Re:Bitcoin does not need Washington to save it. (Score 1) 71
The CLARITY Act failing is good for Bitcoin
You do understand that Bitcoin is not the only cryptocurrency that exists, right?
The CLARITY Act failing is good for Bitcoin
You do understand that Bitcoin is not the only cryptocurrency that exists, right?
This is only really a useful observation if you can tell me ahead of time which developers are competent and which ones are incompetent.
If you are hiring a developer your chances of finding one who is not incompetent is vanishingly small. The correct approach is to train them to be competent, and set standards. This should begin with requiring the bug tracker to be emptied out (or decreasing bug count, if the total number is currently overwhelmingly large), and there are plenty of online and in-person resources for training developers to learn how to write secure code.
and use tools like memory-safe languages to mitigate that risk.
Security vulnerabilities happen in every language. Anyone who thinks the language will make them safe is an idiot. What I mean is, you are an idiot, cmseagle 1195671.
** - It seems dubious that Truman really understood what he was signing onto.
My take was that he could have stopped it if he wanted to, but the bureaucratic machine was already in motion, and he would have had to put some effort into stopping it. I'm glad we didn't bomb Kyoto but maybe Xi will.
also voted against the motion after pressure from community bank executives.
Wow, I hate both sides.
I am also dying to know how you want to measure the existence of not yet found security problems.
It was easy. I asked, "ChatGPT, are there any security bugs in this code?"
My code is now proven secure, get with the program.
Yes of course when there is a skill and no standards of training, some people are bad at it
This. Most companies don't follow best practices when it comes to good code (for example, they have a bug tracker that is always growing, never empty). They don't try to write secure code, they don't have trainings in secure code, they don't penalize insecure code (although they should in a lot of cases). That is why most corporate programmers can't write secure code.
History shows that developers cannot write safe code
History shows that incompetent developers cannot write safe code. There are examples of programmers writing safe code.
People who make excuses for unsafe code are usually crappy developers, and that is what I think of you. You're a crappy developer if you can code at all.
I think Ubuntu (and other's desire) to remove coreutils is precisely because coreutils is old, brittle and written in an unsafe language.
They aren't brittle. I've looked at them. The code is fine, but it uses an older style that is annoying to newbies.
If I were going to rewrite something in Rust, I would look at Firefox, not Coreutils which I would consider a waste of time.
The clash of ideas is the sound of freedom.