pinkforest(she/her) 🦀

I haven't seen this much with google but guess laying off a lot of people isn't going well for them

@tshirtman@mas.to I hate the word safe / unsafe in Rust as I think it's misleading what it actually does IMO it should be indicative of memory guarantees than just bagging it as "safety" which would indicate other kinds of safety like using I/O resources etc. It was a good start but I think people need to understand fundamentals more. Token machines only slop what superficial disconnected words (bias on marketed / visible context) it finds off the internet but not the fundamental applied knowledge you gain over the decades through experience that is not necessarily spelled out in stackoverflow only to be scraped later. Maybe one day we can have proof & verification at a level we can trust shit more but it's not there given proofs (and verification) are as good as one writes them meaning they can fail too.

@tshirtman@mas.to This was a bit of a subtoot on the userspace-only fixes where they just thought they can silicon the userspace without addressing fundamental issues in the kernel / boundary layer that's been masked over. Memory safety is one smol thing but people should not slop over every other class of bug and vulnerability that exists in a given integrated system around it. The misleading vibed promises is what hurts everyone through this slop driven industrial nonsense.

To me what is repulsive is they think if they let LLM re-write it in Rust it will be automatically safer somehow because supposedly if you ignore all the fundamentals but it passes the Rust borrow checker it must be "safe' ..

It's like the 90s leaky building crisis or #asbestos "magic mineral" thinking building is now cheap / easier where they forget the foundations, waterproofing etc. hidden stuff only to hide later when epidemic of cancers and respiratory diseases a'la "find out later" phase pops up

No, Rust is not asbestos itself but LLM driven slop is definitely "magic mineral" that is expensive to remediate later.

I didn't have King of England citing Magna Carta in my bingo card for 2026 🫠

@humanhorseshoes@mastodon.world @janvlug@mastodon.social The problem is the horde of local enterpri$e consultants who each refer to and back each other in worst sense making the government refer to this racket which then buys the SaaS from Palantir / Oracle etc. Govts need to shift to open source and where the service providers are obligated using open components ran by themselves in local physical infrastructure.

@janvlug Is there a name for a concept that involves sovereign citizen but in context where they refuse to use or otherwise enable / acknowledge the implicit extended US digital jurisdiction in government services e.g. rendering government's own jurisdiction inoperable due to shit like this.

@jarkko@social.kernel.org Micro$lop just vibed this repo - https://github.com/microsoft/RustTraining/issues/14

Is there Anti-LLM license yet ?

@rikviergever Accenture was that final nail for bugtraq too. it had some sort of zombie resurrection by them that went nowhere.. https://seclists.org/bugtraq/2021/Jan/

@GossiTheDog I feel sorry for all the persons named Claude https://github.com/search?q=claude&type=commits

@lispi314@udongein.xyz @dangoodin@infosec.exchange @cstross@wandering.shop yus. He was right. 10y ago:

Users should be asked for permission ... “Not using keys,” he added. ... Keys will be compromised. Try to limit the damage .. let the user be in control.”

Per-host random keys.. even with the “stupid” UEFI checks disabled entirely if required. “They are almost certainly going to be more secure than depending on some crazy root of trust based on a big company, with key signing authorities that trust anybody with a credit card.”