Defining a threat model means to qualify what sort of attacker you expect to face and what they are assumed to be capable of
Which is exactly what OP is talking about. 5 years ago if you were only trying to defend against script kiddies, using containers was good enough. But now you have to consider that script kiddies might find container escapes.
It sounds like this case is actively being investigated by legal authorities, and whether or not Destiny knowingly possessed CSAM is still not determined.
I think the responsible thing for the internet to do is to wait until clearer facts come out, instead of casting judgement early and making the situation way more messy.
how clusters decide which members are reliable and which should be deemed faulty.
I believe you’re talking about RAFT. That requires trusting all nodes, so it’s not any different from how CAs already work. After all, the issue at hand is a compromised CA.
Thanks, I wasn’t sure if it mattered that the leaked keys in this case were for intermediate certs and not root certs (afaik)
I’m too lazy to read the court docs but I’ll just say this:
IF what you’re saying is true about the case being about a revenge porn case involving a (pretend) 19-year old girl, and the above commenters are claiming it as CSAM or sexting involving minors, then this is gross misinformation and you should not be downvoted so hard for calling it out.
That’s fair, but this thread is also full of people questioning the courts. If regular citizens can’t be trusted to judge, and courts also can’t be trusted to judge, who is to judge? (If we trusted all victims of any crime, you can see how that could be easily abused.)
Wasn’t the Gamer’s Nexus video on LG spy TVs, saying that the telemetry traffic is protected by SSL and thus they couldn’t figure out exactly what was sent? Would they be able to use the leaked keys to decrypt the traffic?
DNS requires consensus (on who owns which name). So if by “voting peer system” you are talking about decentralized consensus, then blockchain is one of the only systems of such kind.
If you don’t want blockchain, then there’s no real choice other than a centralized system like CAs.
Tell me then, was the problem solved, the work done by the LLM?
partially
Was it considered good enough for a mainbranch?
Probably, if it took multiple experts to catch the bug.
Or was it faulty/risky and require highly trained experts to catch? Then flagged, and only put into an experimental branch?
As happens with human code all the time
How many ex-Oracle memory experts do you think are available for this work, in which even Linus didn’t catch the race condition?
No idea, at least one.
A competent person like Linus can manage and direct competent code generation, whether that code is generated by an AI or an intern.
Right wingers have used that exact line on me, because they assume all “woke” actions are performative and aren’t based in real beliefs.
Well Paul Graham is not referring to you, since the rest of his quote makes it clear that he is talking about those who don’t engage deeply.
Imo there’s no point in discussing a quote or article if you aren’t going to take it in good faith. If you take the worst interpretation of their words, of course it’s going to be bad.
But if you take Paul Graham’s words at face value, then he’s simply saying that he believes shallow engagement had a large and negative influence on online discourse. That’s all you need to take from that quote.
How do you know what he means by “woke”? I read it as “people who virtue signal and don’t actually care”
Let me translate this bit:
your interpretation, not necessarily what he meant
I disagree, it’s ok for forums to have a focus. Hacker News has always been focused on tech and startups
Another article of Drew Devault grasping straws. For example he picks out this quote when trying to diminish Paul Graham:
Racism, for example, is a genuine problem. Not a problem on the scale that the woke believe it to be, but a genuine one. I don’t think any reasonable person would deny that. The problem with political correctness was not that it focused on marginalized groups, but the shallow, aggressive way in which it did so. Instead of going out into the world and quietly helping members of marginalized groups, the politically correct focused on getting people in trouble for using the wrong words to talk about them.
I literally don’t see what’s wrong with this quote. Paul Graham is referencing identity politics, virtue signaling, and other behaviors that were definitely common before, and are still fairly common today.
They might operate differently but they still appear the same as us, 99.9% of the time. Imo if it looks like a duck and acts like a duck…
There’s a world of possibilities between “public facing server” and “turn the internet off”. Like using a VPN or mTLS. Or only connecting when you are at home.
However it sounds like you aren’t worried about the increased threat landscape, or at least aren’t willing to compromise on your current level of convenience. That is a fair answer to OP’s question.