Considerably more difficult than you imagine. Between them, they have almost 70 command-line options or flags. Taking into account that many of those behave differently depending on the presence or absence of other flags, there's a couple hundred different code paths. Then you need to handle directories, files, sparse files, sym- and hard-links, on and across different filesystems, not to mention the various file-like things scattered around (pipes, streams, etc.)

It's not rocket science, but neither is it trivial.

Famous last words. "Proven because it is old" is a much weaker argument than "Proven because the compiler validates every individual unit." Period. Not to mention, we keep seeing this argument fall apart, especially when the "old code" egos prevail even when they obviously shouldn't have.

https://openprinting.github.io...

Common sense should tell you that old code is not proven simply because nobody has exploited it. But here you are, making that argument. You have implementations confused with specifications. Specifications tend to age better than implementations do.

We knew that. But now we have proof.

Will anything happen because of that? Nah, I don't think so. A few token gestures maybe. A friendly mail to everyone saying to write better reasons, followed up by an informal mail that tells them to ignore the previous one.

This isn't a mistake. It's intentional. The more arbitrary and uncontrolled the police can act, the more it is feared, the more it is a tool for oppression and not a part of civil society, the more likely the cops will stand on the side of the powerful when there are protests or uprisings against the increasing oppression and economic divide.

Correct. The proper response is "I don't answer questions". And if they detain you, "I don't answer questions without a lawyer present".

The proper question is why should you be required to answer such a question if it's not related to a traffic stop. Your response is riddled with assumptions that first, the officer is investigating another crime, in which case indeed they may have questions to ask. A robbery? Do they have a description of the vehicle? Does it match yours, even minimally? If not, they really don't have any evidence on which to base a further expansion of the stop. Nonetheless, if you go to trial, you're not going to be required to say yes, that was my car. Let them prove it was your car. And in this case at the stop, all of what you're describing is more or less entirely inadequate for detention. Innocent until proven guilty is part of this. If they have reasonable suspicion, of course they can expand on the stop. If they're just fishing around, where you're coming from, where you're going, no.

If I was designing that reason input, you would have to add the reason, the time of relevant, and attach a picture of yourself. Once you do that, you'd have to get at least two other independent officers sign off, with one being your superior, who becomes liable if missed used. Once all of that is done, and confirmed, then you could run your search.

It wouldn't prevent abuse, but it would slow it down, and provide a chain of verification, so a single officer alone couldn't violation peoples freedom.

Everyone knows AI can make stuff up, my grandmothers, one is 86, the other is 94, both know that AI makes stuff up. If a lawyer can't be bothered to read what they submit, why give them an easy excuse / pass? Forget about AI, frankly lawyers mess too much up anyway, and it's unacceptable. I've seen contract reviews, policy reviews, license reviews, where they'll gloss over statements, then act like they didn't when you point that out.

I just finished a policy review for a company I won't name. In two of the policy documents it says paraphrased: “This document overrides all other documents, to be a single source of truth.” The lawyers for the company kept trying to insist that didn't apply in our case because we had a contract, but, there was no exception for that. When I insisted they add that exception into the wording, they refused, had a fit, and basically stormed off like toddlers.

They were (and are), mad, they wrote a set of bad policy documents, and they are seemingly more annoyed that someone read them, and located issues. To be fair, I'm not asking them to rewrite multiple policy documents, just change: “This document overrides all other documents, to be a single source of truth.” to “This document overrides all other documents, to be a single source of truth, unless, the parties have an otherwise formalized policy / license negotiated.", or something like that.

There's a not insignificant portion of people who used their headset for more than 15minutes. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it, but the reality is you are a random person guessing on the internet. Valve on the other hand is a company who has immense amounts of data about the active use of hardware, active use of a dedicated API developed for VR (SteamVR) and a shitton of sales figures specific to titles dedicated solely to VR. And they have this data not including the fact that the most popular headset on the market is independent of their API and their store. Oh and this isn't their first rodeo either, their previous one considered anything but "a flop".

Someone with actual data thought this was a good investment decision. The peanut gallery guessing game is meaningless.

*hits buzzer* "What is... an out of touch comment for 2026?"

And yet the majority of drones on the market transmit digital re-encoded signals even without low-latency. The point I was making is that just because something isn't suitable for the most extreme condition doesn't make it "horrible" or "foolish". The world is dominated by the general purpose use case, not the niche extremes. There are more city bicycles in the world than high end racing bikes. The fact you don't see them in the Tour De France doesn't make their existence horrible of foolish.

I've also had many drones, even have a small one for doing tricks on (I'm not very good, I'm not trying to compare myself to racers). None of them I guarantee you have the low latency anywhere near any number you quoted, but yet they are normal common products enjoyed by the vast majority of the people.

In that regard will the Quest 3 or Valve's Frame be used for PCVR e-Sports competitions? No. But that doesn't make them horrible or foolish. OP even talks about using it for iRacing which is even dumber since racing reaction is predictive not reactive, the course doesn't magically changes and low latency will not determine his performance either. It's an arbitrary metric which doesn't apply to the common person.

And I remind the readers that "common" here is already a niche product. If you're hoping someone caters to a high performance niche of an already niche platform, man are you shit outta luck.

Actually, I don't mind that person, I know we disagree a lot, but, I enjoy the back and forth with them.

That's actually hilarious!

We're clearly not going to agree, which is fine, I think we're divided enough as to render any more functional talks about this pointless.

Safety is either absolute or it's not, a degree of safety, which is what Rust provides, is the same as not having safety at all, from a functional standpoint. All I'm saying by that statement is you have to assume you have no safety. Why start with the assumption that what you're going to build is safe, so you can be unprofessional, rushed, sloppy, and careless? What if a bug in the Rust compiler removes that assumed safety? That would be fundamentally like a linter missing where you forgot to call free and release the memory you're holding.

I can take a C program, lint it with multiple linters, compile it with multiple compiles, a smart check to do when its critical code, and be sure the code is safe. Any reasonable project is going to have test cases, fuzzing, and all manners of checks / verifications, which any developer worth 2 cents is going to write. With AI being fairly advanced now, you can ask AI to review your code, so if the code you wrote turns out unsafe, that's really on the developer. Use static code analysis tools like Qodana, and SonarQube, to add more assurance you can trust the code. C isn't unsafe just by existing, C code can be unsafe, if you're not careful, don't understand memory / hardware, and write code that should never leave your computer.

Lets be clear about something, I'm not claiming I write perfect, bug free code. However, when I do make a mistake, I don't blame the language or compiler. The platform I'm working on right now, in TypeScript not C, has nearly 100k test cases, with two different test platforms, one in Playwright, and one in GO, that both have to pass validation runs before my code can deploy. I'm not relying on TypeScript to make sure my code is "safe". TypeScript has strict checks, for instance not misusing NULL, but do you trust them, or, do you write code to check them?

Consider:

Traffic stop. Officer is making 'small talk'. "Where ya goin?". Where ya comin from?".

These are generally not 'small talk'. They are fishing questions, cop asking for info that could lead to suspicion, and detention while they dig for more.

And these sorts of questions can generally be answered by, simply, "None of your business, officer".

Every subsequent question, such as "I'm just making small talk", or "Hey, no big deal", or "What's the problem, you have something to hide?" are all just follow up fishing questions. And deserve no answer.

During a traffic stop, Flock gives officers information they would normally be lawfully denied, like "Where ya coming from?". Flock sidesteps your right to constitutionally refuse such information (and in the absence of reasonably articulable suspicion or other evidence, during a traffic stop, denies the officer the right to demand such information) and as such is a blight on constitutional protections. Flock must be better controlled, or abandoned.

And officers using Flock to look up the plates of their ex, former landlord, or the random guy who gave them a dirty look at a stop light are plainly violating these individuals' rights, and must be sanctioned. And the supervision of the abuses systems similarly sanctioned. Meaningful sanctions, every incident.

The Government rarely surrenders access to information. They seek power at every opportunity. In America, only the Constitution, and adherence to law, can nominally restrict this.

Is your Google broken? The EFF has an entire tagged section on exactly that.

Since we all know you're not going to bother checking, I'll give the tl;dr: They're quite opposed to it.