This was caught during review, so nothing was “introduced” quite yet. And there’s no indication that Linus wouldn’t have produced a race condition (a notoriously more easy to miss kind of bug) without the use of AI tools.
It’s only being exaggerated so much because he used AI.
I understand it, but as a citizen from “The Netherlands” it has always felt a bit weird.
In plenty of countries carrying knives in public is not allowed. You can own one for use in your home or work but don’t brandish it out in the open.
The reason few people know this is because it’s rarely ever needed, and the people violating that law are generally the people you want arrested anyway (e.g. because they’re trying to stab someone).
They’re different products, Wero offers features Bizum does not. Ultimately Wero is a product banks can make more money off of so they’re likely to invest eventually. But atm Wero is unproven in the actual market, so it remains to be seen how well it will catch on. That’s why these banks don’t want to make the switch immediately, and prefer this expansion route first. If the consumer demand is there, the banks will follow.
That linkdash article is about how they intend to extend local payment methods and make them cross-border. From my understanding, this will exist alongside Wero, using its infrastructure, but it doesn’t mean that it’s not coming itself.
Exact arrival times on Wero in other countries aren’t known yet (I don’t know them either) but it is in the pipeline. The idea is to start with a smaller core of countries first (born out of the very successful Dutch iDEAL), and from the lessons learned and how it catches on they will determine when it expands further.
I have my info from confidential documents relating to my job that I can’t share I’m afraid.
Wero is more like an alternative to Paypal. The Digital Euro is more akin to replacing VISA/Mastercard.
That’s the current state of the rollout. Wero is poised to expand to the rest of Europe as well. Source: my job.
I think the rules written in Clean Code are mostly a response to the kinds of bad code that Martin had to deal with. I think compared to the bad examples he cites his rules are an improvement.
Ousterhout mostly pricks holes in these rules, based on the bad code he has seen. But he’s not infallible either since he wrote wrong comments on his own code, which is a bit of a self-own.
I don’t think it’s entirely possible to provide one set of rules that can be universally applied. You need to adjust your code to the problem you’re solving, your audience, your programming language, etc… You’ll always find counterexamples where doing something a little different works better.
Code should be self-explanatory, but a good informative comment can go a long way. Long methods should probably be broken up, but not always and not beyond the point of usefulness. I’ve seen examples where the UB version read better than the JO version, and vice versa.
The value for me in these discussions is finding out why people write what they do, and what they prefer to read (and why). That helps me think about how I can best structure my code for readability. But there’s no point in setting rules and becoming dogmatic about them.
I am, but you can use a custom analyzer to stop it from compiling if misused. So you can actually stop a caller from writing that and walking away :)
It’s not impossible, at least in C# I know you can mark objects that need to be RAII with some custom attribute and enforce correct usage patterns with a custom analyzer. You need to write it yourself but it’s not impossible that way.
I do a lot of security work and iOS RCE vulns are typically patched same day with all devices in support getting that security patch at the same time.
The ones you know about, yes :). We know there are complete firms actively exploiting iOS devices though. With Android the security community can figure out what the flaws are and patch them, with iOS it’s a black box.
Android, it’s heavily dependant on the device manufacturer etc, no? So many forks of Android plus countless handsets never get an update as they’re out of support.
Most devices are legally required to get X years of security updates, and most manufacturers do push those out fairly quickly. Maybe not all the same day, sure, but they do go out.
I do remember a fair few exploits for iOS devices that allowed an attacker to take over a device without any user interaction, and most mentioned they were actively being exploited by malicious (state) actors.
All I think however is that the price of the exploit doesn’t necessarily correspond with how secure the device actually is, but rather it’s based on the value that that exploit might hold. US entities would probably also offer more than EU entities, whereas for Android it might be the other way around.
If it turns out that it gets ruled as copyright violations, you can bet your ass they’re going to reform copyright law instead of rolling everything back.
That means that they believe there’s more value in having those exploits, not necessarily that they’re harder to find. Though I imagine it’s at least a little bit harder because iPhones are closed source. That does also mean that if Apple doesn’t discover the vulnerability, it’s unlikely to get a patch. With Android, these security issues are found more easily, but also patched much faster. Which I suppose makes an Android vulnerability also worth less, since you get more limited use out of it.
Well that was also discussed, the person who suggested not having an AI disclosure was against it being used for advertising, but was also open to having a general one that didn’t allow the company/model. Not sure that discussion has concluded yet btw.
This is about OpenAI testing new, unreleased agents in their own sandbox on specified tasks. Not about the model that gets released to the public.
There was some discussion on that still. Some people wanted to avoid having AI companies basically get free advertisements in PRs.
You can restrict which websites it is allowed to access, monitor the traffic, etc… There’s tons of options here.
The skeleton shows some very clearly female hips though. I don’t think this looks like two people.
How would it gather traffic data if they don’t send a few cars down an unpopular path?
If there’s no cars there, there’s no traffic data to collect. If there are already cars there, just use their data. Google doesn’t just use maps to gather it. There’s not much point in sending someone on an arbitrary detour for the hell of it.
Google does seem to often overestimate the practicality of the more rural routes, often pretending you can always stick to the speed limit there when the actual road would not be safe at those speeds. Plus more crossings, bends etc… slowing you down. Or maybe that day Google figured there was a traffic jam on 40.
Race conditions I’m pretty sure aren’t language specific. Rust can have them too.