"Delta, unlike its competitors, apparently has not modernized its IT infrastructure"
- Boss, their licences show they haven't rolled out Windows 11 yet.
- We've got 'em boys!
17875 publicly visible posts • joined 13 Jun 2009
I use the NewPipe player with no Google login and follow similar channels to you and the recommendations are usually fairly similar to the original videos too.
However one of the channels is Patreon sponsored and sends links to unlisted videos a week before general release and the recommended channels there are either RWNJ or flat earth or climate denial.
I assume YouTube's algorithm doesn't have enough to work with to recommend similar subjects yet... and if that nonsense is pushed by default then I'm not surprised we've got a problem.
AI can likely translate 90% of the code to safe Rust, humans can review places where it fails or where it outputs unsafe code (the advantage of Rust being that unsafe code is labelled as such).
It won't fail, it will just use incorrect syntax which won't compile. Or, worse, silently alter the logic of the code and leave it to someone to find the problem later.
If it fails when transferring shell scripts to Python or one version of SQL to another or returning the full syntax of a command you give it, which is what I've tried LLMs out for, you'd have to be out of your mind to use it for converting a full C project to Rust.
It is not that complicated and difficult. All that has to happen is when the car crosses the border it could act as if the driver were not paying attention so the driver would have to turn off assisted driving within a certain amount of time or get a "forced disengagement".
As well as Australia and New Zeleand, they're also in building codes across Western Europe so presumably it does offer protection (or perhaps it's just regulatory capture by big RCD).
Off the top of my head it would immediately help in the US for those people who insist on creating the annual yuletide deathtrap.
Personally I would insist on a rewire if I somehow managed to buy a house which isn't protected by RCDs everywhere.
I assume it was this one, somehow it manages to blame "shortsighted engineers" for using two-digit years but not mention all the work done to fix software, giving the impression there was a bunch of prophecies foretelling the end of the world but only a few things broke in the end. Jesus effing Christ...
I've never understood widely-held idea in US software circles which consists of the CEO wiping their arse on a piece of paper and calling it an EULA or T&Cs and this apparently makes the seller or service provider invulnerable to their customers. I suspect we're about to find out it's not true.
As long as the anti-virus industrial complex claims that the danger they protect against is so great that they must react so fast there's no time to properly test and as long as CSO and CTOs believe that their computers are protected by the snake oil sold by these companies, nothing will change.
Compare and contrast with France, Germany, Denmark...
The change in mentality needs to come from the top, but it takes something completely over the top like this to make the ICO do anything, usually they're about as useful as a chocolate fireguard.
The EU only said that whatever MS did for their own endpoint software, they should offer third parties the same access that they have themselves.
MS could have developed a security endpoint API for themselves and third parties but instead they decided to allow kernel access for themselves and 3rd parties via kernel drivers.
That doesn't excuse Crowdstrike's shonky code of course.
AVs and endpoint security software by definition has to be up to date. MS could develop an API and make developers transition over simply by not signing off any more WHQL drivers for this kind of software after a certain date. It wouldn't break any other decades-old software, why would it?
So the remaining question is it even an option in their kernel architecture. It should be. Can they make the necessary changes to accomplish this? That's up to MS. If they can't it doesn't bode well for future improvements to Windows that aren't just rejigging the UI.
If it turns out they can't then they should at least make recovery easier. Return F8 and "last known good configuration" to the boot sequence and make recovery from failed driver loading easier and more automatic.
It goes in the kernel so that it has more visibility and control over what happens. There are some things that can't be done from user space at all, for perfectly good security reasons, and others which can't be done efficiently from there.
Only because MS never made an endpoint security API to make this stuff accessible from userland. Something like this, which Crowdstrike uses on the Mac version.
Please let's not defend Window's architecture as the way things must be when we have two examples in alternative OSes of how it can be done better.
Last I heard Optimus was a man in a spandex suit. Why wouldn't you want one?
I don't see any Linux kernel bug there, just Crowdstrike trashing kernel memory structures then the kernel crashing as a result.
Now this doesn't happen on Linux because of eBPF. One of the eBPF checks is "programs dereferencing pointers without safety checks" which is exactly what happened on Windows.
Windows really needs its own version of eBPF.