standupstandup

That's clearly not what it's trying to do right now. For one the UK is still a member state and still paying its dues, but the EU is acting in an extremely hostile way. Unless you reflexively define the best interests of the EU Commission and related institutions as "the best interests of all and every single member state", it is certainly not the case.

Consider: The EU is setting things up such that in just over a year trucks will start to pile up at ports, costs will rise across Europe and the UK, many European firms will be cut off from the financing they receive from London, airplanes will be grounded, Irish politics will destabilise due to the introduction of a hard border and that's really just the beginning. None of this is in the interests of any person in any EU member state at all. And it can all be easily avoided.

Your spa analogy is very badly off by the way. Trade isn't something countries sell like a product itself, despite the EU's attempts to package it that way. Countries that strike free trade deals do not "buy" them, they negotiate and agree to them. Think about neighbours cooperating more than a consumer buying a product.

If you go read press releases made about trade deals they always have apparently huge numbers but spread over a very large number of years. Modulo what's said elsewhere about the uselessness of economic predictions, the predicted impact is usually very low. Probably because tariffs are already quite low and falling globally, most trade barriers are now regulatory in nature and those tend to be relatively unaffected by trade deals.

I think it takes a certain amount of bravery to accept that there are no "experts" when it comes to predicting the future.

There simply aren't any economic projections of a trustworthy nature right now.

As just a single example the housebuilding industry has been consistently able to build fewer houses than there are people arriving by a large number, and the statistics over how many people are arriving are themselves deeply suspect - they don't correlate with any other population related statistics, and are based on airport surveys that ask a subset of people whether they plan to stay for a long period.

If politicians allow immigration at levels significantly above the speed at which infrastructure can be built out to support the new people then infrastructure reliability and availability will decline. It is reasonable to be concerned about that if you rely on that infrastructure.

The idea of Brexit voters as incorrigible racists isn't supportable, no datasets of any integrity show that and the brief spike of "omg britain is so racist" died down very quickly after the referendum, simply because the UK is and remains by far the most racially diverse nation in Europe.

Note that the Intercept meets most of your criteria when it can, and Breitbart meets all but the "no ads" criteria. Both cite and link to sources at least sometimes, when those sources are citable.

The moment you start down the "we are weak and helpless and we need the smart benevolent geniuses in Government to help us" you're just gonna lose a whole lot of people. Because there's no reason to believe there is even a problem here, let alone a problem that needs to be solved with regulation.

SGX is at least a middle ground - it integrates the memory access checks very deep into the memory access circuitry, sufficiently deep to block all other privilege levels on the CPU. Whilst there may well be implementation flaws in SGX itself so far most attacks have been mounted via side channels, not directly exploiting CPU bugs.

In this sense my original statement was correct. Intel is pushing secure CPUs forward more than any other vendor.

I'd hope that Germany of all countries understands the importance of sovereign democratic government and the harsh conditions people will endure to preserve it.

In fact the behaviour of Germany (and France) in recent times has seriously worsened my perception of these countries. I wouldn't say they're clearly better in my view than the USA, despite Trump.

I am curious how JIT compilation policies will affect this. Wasm is a new bytecode form that has no mature JIT compilers. I wonder how many safety properties the compilers will assume. For instance if the wasm VM only really tries to stop wasm code escaping its own sandbox, then I guess compiling all stack ops down to a unified stack, C style, is a perfectly legitimate approach as long as the sandbox properties can be maintained. I don't think wasm is claiming it will make all C/C++ hackproof code.

Just in general if I have an arbitrary memory write primitive inside the wasm memory space, how much control over the program can I obtain?

wasm program parses q

stack smash occurs

ROP chain is used to gain code execution

user cookie is stolen

attacker now controls your account

I don't know enough about wasm to know if it has some special mitigations for this but when I looked at it, wasm seemed closer to a CPU emulation than a high level language VM. Flat memory space, no GC, no pointer maps.

As for the rest, well, it'd be nice if there was any sort of plan to make Blink safer. I know about oilpan but what Mozilla is doing with Rust is impressive. The JVM guys are working on rewriting the JVM in Java. What's Blink's plan to make its own code safer? Sandboxing alone?

I don't know of any books that handle all those topics off hand. I was thinking more of secure coding for engineers, rather than system architecture in general.

https://medium.com/@bitfinexed to find out why

Anyway. I run a largeish software team and we have a mix of very experienced devs along with some newer devs who definitely have holes in their skills. We run training in certain areas with the goal of upskilling the team. Especially for security and secure coding practices which aren't taught in universities. There's also a lot of training around good engineering practices and the like. I'm pretty sure most software companies are the same.

Yes, the industry does not train people from absolute scratch like apprentice schemes do. It's very reliant on universities. But I don't see legions of unemployed students: they do get jobs and companies do take over their training to bring them from basic to advanced.