With uses segregated, the "reasonable" argument does not make sense to me: infrastructure will have to be maximized because there will be big migrations of people based on normal use times like going to work. You need twice as much parking, twice as much freeway throughput.
Don’t just think in terms of low density around current American cities.
Plopping down a subdivisions in a sleepy county can quickly overwhelm local school systems, sewage treatment, etc. Even just 7% annual growth doubles the local population every decade which requires incredible and increasing investments in infrastructure. Slowing that down slightly is hardly unreasonable and it can help avoid expensive and damaging boom / bust cycles.
...and yet the article completely ignores the "with unpredictable results" part and instead spends a lot of time discussing all the other valid consequences (which are also only mentioned as examples, at least in the common understanding of "from ... to ...").
Downthread commenters go into more detail regarding the "ignoring e.g. the possibility of signed overflow may mean to assume that it never happens" reading, so I won't elaborate on it here.
Leaving overflow to the processor is an example of ignoring it with unpredictable results. Deleting overflow checks because you assume, incorrectly, that overflow is impossible is not an example of ignoring with unpredictable effects, it does produce unpredictable effects, though.
How is the compiler supposed to know that a particular operation is intended as an overflow check though? It isn't a human and it doesn't actually comprehend the code it operates on. It just blindly applies rules.
I want the compiler to eliminate redundant operations. That's a large part of the point of doing optimizations in my view! Best effort attempts to avoid eliminating obvious sanity checks are desired of course, but I doubt it's feasible to reliably identify those short of AGI. (And at that point, why are you still writing code?)
The original article's interpretation seemed untenable.
While the difference between "Permissible" and "Possible" could be quite significant, in this case, it was qualifying:
> [Permissible/Possible] undefined behavior ranges from ignoring the situation completely with unpredictable results, to behaving during translation or program execution in a documented manner characteristic of the environment (with or without the issuance of a diagnostic message), to terminating a translation or execution (with the issuance of a diagnostic message).
The previously-"Permissible" behaviors were so broad that they basically allowed anything, including translating the source-code in any documented manner.. which basically means that, as long as a compiler says how it'll treat undefined-behavior, it can do it that way, because it's free to completely reinterpret the source-code in any (documented) manner.
One of the functions of the government is to educate and train its population. I think using that function could resolve the shortage or high cost of talent.
I agree that it's terrible that people did not read before tweeting.
I believe Greg was not saying Aditya was both incompetent and malicious. Greg was saying incompetent or malicious. The incompetence stemmed from how Aditya handled his static analysis patches: seemingly no manual review and no explicit statement that the patches were from a tool (which is apparently standard procedure).
I don't know why you're trying to defend Greg so vehemently when all of the facts show that he slandered Aditya - Greg's own words, factual accounts of reality.
Most of Aditya's patches were legitimate. Multiple upstream developers have confirmed this:
Other kernel maintainers have already picked up on this.
>
You, and your group, have publicly admitted to sending known-buggy
patches to see how the kernel community would react to them, and
published a paper based on that work.
Here is a direct quote from Greg where he falsely alleges that Aditya is responsible for the previous work.
> Now you submit a new series of obviously-incorrect patches again,
Many of the patches are correct - see the above link where one maintainer points this out.
> So what am I supposed to think here, other than that you and your
group are continuing to experiment on the kernel community developers by
sending such nonsense patches?
Another false allegation that Aditya is experimenting on the kernel, attributing malice.
> You were not asking for help, you were claiming that these were
legitimate fixes, which you KNEW to be incorrect.
Many were legitimate. Again, a false accusation from Greg.
Then Greg goes on to attack him some more, instead of just explaining things to him, like "Hey, in the future can you add 'found by tool xyz'". In other mailing lists kernel maintainers point out that that would have been the sane response, not going to bother to link that.
> Our community welcomes developers who wish to help and enhance Linux.
That is NOT what you are attempting to do here, so please do not try to
frame it that way.
In fact, that is exactly what Aditya was trying to do.
>
Our community does not appreciate being experimented on, and being
"tested" by submitting known patches that are either do nothing on
purpose, or introduce bugs on purpose.
Aditya did no such thing.
Greg's response is indefensible. It's just littered with insults and attacks, and factually incorrect allegations against a legitimate security researcher.
I find this argument comes most often from people who already are so far down the rabbit hole, I had no chance of convincing them of anything anyway. Not always. But often.
If you read the reddit comments, you'd also see ones like this:
all praising my tone and how I "kept my cool" despite the trolls and sealions. A few similar comments here as well. Sorry it wasn't to your taste. Better luck next time I guess
Or to be fair, I should say: I will try harder next time, I guess.
You can't please all of the people all of the time, but you can certainly make an effort. Right now I don't really see what specific criticisms you're making other than that you don't like the way I write.
Is it really faster? I'm thinking if you have blocked the ads, that will be significantly faster. Google's benchmarks of course would not include how much faster HTTP3 is for pages with blocked ad content.
Clients can refuse pushed requests (e.g. if they match filtering rules), so it's not like the server will push the full files through. It'd be interesting to check if clients do take e.g. OS settings about metering into account and disable push entirely to even avoid the initial transfer.
Unfortunately, warrants aren't a sufficient safeguard against abuse of technology. Law enforcement is well known to use evidence laundering techniques to work around procedural safeguards.
I think the determination of probable cause should be audited much more heavily, with a lot more in the way of penalties for judges for clearly wrong answers.
I also think the fact that there is essentially no consequence whatsoever for police plainly lying in warrant applications is a major oversight.
100% of the applications for granted warrants I’ve read have had clear factual errors in them, sworn under penalty of perjury (ha!).
We don’t even track what percentage of warrant applications contain perjury (~100% in my estimation), much less what percentage of those so swearing face consequences as a result (~0% in my estimation).
If I can summarize: search warrants should not be banned but we should enforce the checks and balances that justify their existence in the first place.
I agree with that 100%. I dk believ that is orthogonal to using warrants on public surveillance. Maybe politically it might be a nice lever, though: we will authorize surveillance with this new system in place for all warrants.
I'm surprised that the powers-that-be are greedy enough to not involve the judicial branch. Lock the video away until there is a warrant! It's not like your right to privacy in your home or phone calls extends past a warrant.
Hmm... I disagree. Speed limits are important. So are various other laws that require human judgement to interpret.
There's a reason we have 'judges' -- the law will never cover all corner cases, and the law needs to set boundaries that are sometimes ok to override. You need a human in the loop evaluating various interpretations and keeping those interpretations current with societal expectations. (And those humans absolutely should not be the police.)
> Speed limits are important. So are various other laws that require human judgement to interpret.
What is there to interpret about a speed limit? If someone is going faster than the speed limit they are breaking the law. Add an error bar for equipment accuracy and the case is as closed as anything can be in life.
We don't want judges making decisions unless it is strictly necessary. That is where racism/sexism/classism/etc start entering the legal system. Judges are empowered to judge, but it'd be better if they can keep it to a minimum,
> If someone is going faster than the speed limit they are breaking the law.
In some (many?) jurisdictions, posted speed limits are not absolute limits but are rather evidence for the judiciary to consider when deciding whether the driver was operating a motor vehicle faster than what was reasonable and proper. (Faster than reasonable and proper being the actual law that has possibly been broken.)
Removing judicial discretion in favor of zero-tolerance laws is a step in the wrong direction I believe.
Speed cameras can be poorly calibrated / setup, there can be multiple cars in frame and they ticket them all, it can be a different person driving, the OCR on the license plate can fail and pick a different car, the officer may have tampered with the evidence, the car may have been stolen, etc.
All of these require due process for something as simple as a speeding ticket.
