These recent teardowns of compromised Ledger wallets are frightening. Because the infiltration of hardware looks very pro. Mass production and standardized parts added.
Even weight difference might not be obvious. He compared weights for one Ledger product but the small variations in weight among genuine devices made comparisons not clear.
Possibly only X-ray would uncover the fake without cracking the case?
Level 5 means "people inside are purely passengers and never have to take steering wheel". For humans, being level 4 means that because of some road condition, driver gets out of the car and asks someone else to drive - either one of the passengers, or some sort of emergency 3rd party service.
I never did this myself (except while learning how to drive). And I don't think I've heard about my friends doing this either. Turn around because the road was impassable? Sure. Pass the wheel to someone else? nope.
That means a lot (most?) human drivers are "level 5 autonomous".
I'm thinking of a time I had to help someone with reverse parking for example. And most people aren't tested in extremes - if they think they can't conditions are harder than they want to handle they just won't go out driving.
Looking at the SAE standards document [0], I can think of a few people I know who only technically reach Level 3. Mostly older women, to be honest. They are only going to drive under certain well defined conditions and will put someone else in the hot seat the trip will be outside a limited comfort zone. They would need someone else to be able to step in at a moments notice to operate a vehicle truly safely. As an aside; the older men are more willing to be adventurous, but also more likely to kill themselves and/or run someone else over based on my experiences with accidents. And in an AI from an engineering perspective that probably bumps them more towards Level 2.
But a truck isn't going to be facing level 5 conditions in the vast majority of circumstances where it is generating economic value. It's probably going to be going in a straight line down a highway or parking in a loading bay.
EDIT And drug/alcohol affected road users probably deserve their own paragraph; but I'm not going to make time to type it up. Just because they might not ask doesn't mean they don't need someone else to drive for them.
There is a lot of general handwaving, but for the practical advice, author only focus on single thing: out-of-bounds array accesses. And their solution is __attribute__((counted_by(...))) + to-be-written compiler extension which would statically check all the array dereferences.
This is amazingly naive. C has significant amount of problems, and while OOB array accesses cause a lot of bugs, there are plenty of other C parts which cause bugs too (like use-after-free and concurrency). And even if we just focus on the OOB array accesses, there are a lot of places which cannot be covered by simple counted_by()
Something of the note: despite the scary name, this is a "parsing mismatch" vulnerability. The discovery what was that one could make a tar file which would safe in the "tar" tool, but when extracted by an affected rust crate, it would find more files, possibly malicious. By itself, it's fine - if you are extracting untrusted tar files without the filter, you are going to have a bad time, vulnerability or not. The vulnerability would only occur if you have a combination of files: like a security scanner which uses one library, followed by the real app which uses a different library. Then the bad code could escape security scanner's attention.
"ambiguous parts can simply be left to human judgment." - it does not work like that. If a human does not know how the code works, they cannot apply their judgement. And they don't know how the code works if they just press enter all day.
That's the sort of well-meaning intention that's backfired because we don't really know how to measure learning unlike height. And yet we've used these proxies to determine so many learning interventions. Take phonics. Sure, that's the right scaffolding pretty much like balance bikes are better than training wheels. But we leach out all meaning by doing narrow drills becaause we are too myopically focused on the "are they reading" goal, which is further broken down into reductive sub-goals "are they blending" "are they decoding" and so on. But learning is multi-dimensional. We learn to find meaning and meaning comes from connected the world to things we see, hear, touch, feel, and finally invent.
Think about how you might want to "measure potential" and ensure "they have everything"
A lot of things have no total ordering, independence level including.
If a person A can unclog the sink and person B can trim the hedges, they are not comparable to each other; however both of them are less independent that person C who can do both.
This ordering requires defining the scope, and the narrower the scope, the easier it is to compare people. If you only look at "maintain the rented city apartment" and "live in rural house" in isolation, it's pretty easy to rank people by independence. But if you say that _either_ of those counts as "independence", the things get much harder to qualify. But either way, there will be people who can't do anything, people who can do everything, and a large mass of "uncomparable" people in the middle.
> If Alex had been conservative, never sharing until he was done and never risking a promise he might not keep, would you know his name?
I think you misunderstood the article - it's great to try new things, and it's not a problem to promise things you are not 100% sure about. What's important is the honesty - "I've tried, I've failed, here is what I learned". OP said the the best:
> "Failure" does not have to be a failure, and V itself does not have to be the sole product of V's development. Alex has time and time again promised to write blog articles on various aspects of V's development. Had he done that, instead of silently backpedalling on claims about V, we could have had very interesting reads reflecting on the challenges of creating a new programming language.
instead, we have disappearing claims that require internet archive to find out, denial of any problems, and blaming of every problem on "misinformation from haters".
You don't need to be corporate or in in academia for basic integrity.
> Alex has time and time again promised to write blog articles on various aspects of V's development. Had he done that...
There are a number of problems with this statement and others made:
(1) Alex (and other contributors to the V project) have written blog articles, a changelog, and a roadmap[1][2][3][4][5]
(2) To not know of Alex's (and other contributors) blog posts or tweets (Twitter/X), gives the impression of only reading misinformation from specific outdated negative blogs, and not having a fair or balanced view.
> independent language creators
> think you misunderstood the article
Others can say you are misunderstanding the perspective given by another language creator who is showing respect for how far the V project has come and what they had to overcome:
(1) Real reviewers of languages, review other languages, not specifically target a language or creator.
(2) It is not honest or valid criticism to engage in defamation or insults because someone created a language one doesn't prefer or is competition.
(3) Languages are not static. They develop, change, and fix things. Which is what the V project does and should be acknowledged for doing.
(4) People will notice when a suddenly self-anointed reviewer of language is presenting outdated, unfair, misleading, or unbalanced views.
As if the sky is falling by selecting a few difficult issues from a clearly developing language, while their preferred or other languages and creators have 2,000 or 20X more issues.
reply