roblabla
In any sane business, the people handling the screaming investors are different from the people handling the social media mess, and they are also different from the people doing the RCA.
That said, given the mess, I wouldn't be surprised if eMudhra only had one employee responsible for all those jobs...
https://archive.bookstr.com/article/royalty-wars-over-star-w...
Copyright doesn't protect small-time authors - because small-time authors don't have the means to harness the legal system to their advantage the way that big corpos that take advantage of them do.
Also, a lot of those soundness issues aren't related to new features _at all_, but usually due to poor assumptions made in optimizations.
The soundness bugs _are_ taken seriously though, and are slowly being patched out. A lot of the links in OP are now closed because Rust either changed how it generates code to avoid the issues, or fixed LLVM.
I mean, the point (if the claim is to be believed) isn't just to "slow down the development", it's to take more time during development to properly assess the risks the models pose, develop methodologies to reduce that risk, and standardize that across companies. I doubt those wouldn't count, especially in the eyes of regulators of an administration calling for that same slow down.
FWIW, I've also had bugs the agent fixed that I probably never would've figured out without LLMs - LLMs are definitely useful! But I need to keep understanding how the code works so I can take over the reigns when the LLM fails.
LLM is incredibly valuable for debugging complex problems, codebase exploration, and planning large changes. But the writing code part itself, I find, LLMs are just not very good at it yet.
Will it work? Probably not. But not even trying would be self-defeating.
Now, a scenario I can see happening is, the ZKP-issuing agency may find a single client downloading several orders of magnitude more proofs than the average citizen, find that suspicious, refer them to the police, who'd get a warrant to investigate said person. Then, the police may manage to connect said person with a proof distribution service. Something along those lines.
Again, I'm personally not a huge fan of the whole age gating, but if we're going to go about it, this is the least worse option. Which is really saying something.
My personal opinion is that age verification itself is a bad idea, but if we're going to go ahead with it, I'd much rather we use ZKP for it than the current mess of "upload your passport and picture of yourself to dodgy 3rd parties that likely now have your browsing traffic associated with your real name"...
That's exactly what they're doing right now - though instead of being "when installing the program", it's "when compiling the program". The problem with hardcoding the path is that it pins the "nix store" (where nix installs all of its programs) to a hardcoded location. If you want to move it, you have to rebuild all your packages - which is suboptimal.
In theory, nix could have a system in place to just patch all binaries when moving the nix store, but that would be incompatible with content-addressed derivation and otherwise break some other nice properties of the nix store.
On Windows, things are less modular, so it's less of an issue. That said, there's also weird shenanigans when it comes to the CRT (which can be statically linked) vs ntdll (which provides the actual linker implementation), that can make certain niche features of the linker misbehave (delay loading in particular is weird).
It's not really arrogance - it's just a different way to design a system. NixOS wants a few things:
1. An input-addressed dependency system
2. Easy and robust rollback/upgrades
3. Different versions of software/libraries/services coexisting on a single machine.
A lot of this is just impossible to have together with the way software were written, so NixOS made the changes necessary for them. When it became obvious it might be useful to other people, they upstreamed it.
I do agree with you that the whole `#!/usr/bin/env bash` shebang shenanigan is kinda ass (my personal nixos machine has a `/bin/bash` alias because there's not enough time in my life to care about this issue). But I also think that NixOS is right here, shebangs requiring a full path is just a terrible design in a multi-user world. If different users want to have a different bash implementation, they should be able to!
---
Fundamentally, I think the NixOS OS design is actually beautiful. It's taking most of what makes modern phone OS so reliable (read-only system, A/B partitions, etc...), and bringing their ideas in a shape that is coherent with desktop/server OS design.
- It would still not allow downgrades to work properly
- It would cause glibc/ld.so to have a harder time adding new features, as they now need to worry about incompatible versions being used together
Meanwhile, having different ld.so has many good use-cases, like simplifying development of ld.so itself, allowing them to swapped during updates in ways that are safer, etc...
And the eBPF binfmt support is a rather simple, generic mechanism that is likely to have many other use-cases beyond ld.so. So it's overall a pretty good resolution to the issue?
Besides, it allows for upgrades/downgrades to be done in a way that's much less error-prone.
https://github.com/githubnext/monaspace/blob/main/docs/Textu...
It's the main reason I use monaspace as a font.
When the internet was researched and developed, it wasn't funded by adtech, and yet it managed to develop it just fine.
---
Also, the point of GDPR wasn't to reduce the number of ads. It was to prevent massive, indiscriminate information gathering. Now, whether that was successful or not is debatable - I have my own gripes on GDPR enforcement (I really hope the banners will get nuked out of existence).
https://www.cer.eu/insights/europe-has-produced-tech-champio...
https://www.investeurope.eu/news/newsroom/state-of-european-...
The tech sector represents 15% of EU's GDP. I currently work in the tech sector in europe, there's no shortage of companies hiring (both startups and enterprise), and anecdotally, from my personal network, enough startups are surviving the 5 and 10 years mark that I'm pretty confident there's enough new ideas/companies (as opposed to only having old/legacy enterprises) to ensure the good health of the sector.
Now, I will acknowledge that funding is more complicated in the EU compared to the US - but that's something that has been acknowledged by EU leadership and is being actively worked on. The Draghi report lays out a vision for how this can be achieved, with recommendation on what steps to take to achieve that vision. https://commission.europa.eu/topics/competitiveness/draghi-r...
So yeah, the tech sector is still well and alive in the EU, and there is reason to believe that it's going to get in an even better position.