I suspect the u ubiquity of electron persists more because maintaining both web and desktop interfaces is somewhat simplified, and as a corollary, you don’t need a separate JS and C/C++/QML team. Qt has gotten pretty good, but JavaScript and typescript are easier to hire.
As I’ve come to understand it, standards simplify intensionally, not extensionally. For those who select a part that is compliant with a standard, more standards to choose from is better because engineers are able to make better tradeoffs; they’re not forced to select a part that does way more than the application needs thus making the product more expensive if there are lots of “competing” standards: some do less some do more.
For RV, a litany of standardized modules creates a system where each capability that the module provides will have a standard interface. No manufacturer is forced to invent extensions bespoke to their implementation, but they’re not forced to support everything the most powerful models do either.
Sure, the constellation of features is no longer a general purpose computer in the retail context, but rather an ASIC appliance the ends up incompatible/useless rather quickly.
Maybe Gentoo could tame that level of chaos... or people just buy ARM64 again knowing the software ecosystem already works. =3
Richard Hipp's recent talk at Software Should Work explains that AI agents have been testing SQLite and they've gotten a deluge of new bug reports from the fuzz-like testing they can do. But they do not do this in house; hobbyists and other organizations do this in their own internal agent-driven fuzzing.
The question is whether the method is sufficiently novel or specific enough to the problems/difficulties of solving a specific domain’s problems to warrant a patent.
It’s one of those kinds of patents i assume I’m violating every 100 lines of code I write.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm explaining that they can be, because the original comment made it sound like autistic people can't understand social behavior at any level.
Autistic people are unusually good at studying patterns objectively. While each individual person is... an individual, studying a sample from a population yields patterns, and thus the justification for the "social sciences". While autistic people may struggle with in person communication and upholding norms of human interaction, they do not generally struggle with understanding game theory, motives, and other aspects of rational decision making. So they can indeed make brilliant (and ruthless) social engineers if only when hiding behind a computer keyboard.
That is not autism, that is sociopathy. Autism does not turn on and off when you can gain something from it.
In your telling, autism is an excuse when they abuse others, because they cant help themselves. But, when it is for their benefit, the same person actually displays higher social skills.
Lol, U should meet my upstairs neighbour, his coping mechanisms are curiously similar to ways of slyly molesting and aggravating other people. He's spent seven years obsessing stalking and trying to harm me psychologically, now he's trapped in a hole he can't get out of... Because he didn't like me ignoring him. I ignore him because he is absurdely vain and likes being distasteful and offputting. I'm sorry, if they don't teach kids coping mechanisms, they are doing this to them. The BBC where mentioned here as spreading FUD about artists, I did a search to find one of the many supportive and educational stories I have seen on their website - the first result is for paid Autism tests for children. It is a profitable diagnosis. It triggers a non behavioural approach that leaves adults disabled for life.
I didn't say it wasn't sociopathy; it most certainly was. Autism and sociopathy are not mutually exclusive. And as they were executing their plan, I do not see any point where their "autism was turned off".
Autistic people can be highly sociable by explicitly learning social skills. They can also learn social skills in order to manipulate others, as is the case here.
Lastly, explaining how a medical condition whose stereotypes seem to make others think those with it would not be capable of committing a crime were in fact capable of committing that crime in no ways is the same as excusing the crime.
They're not excusing the sociopathic element. They're explaining the apparent discrepancy between the fact that autistic people are bad at socializing and the fact that some autistic people are good at social engineering.
There's no discrepancy because "social engineering" isn't "Being good at social things"
Social engineering is just conman pressure tactics or hard sales tactics. It's so simple you can train your average stay at home mom or "hustle culture" bro to do it for Amway or similar in an afternoon.
It requires zero social skills. You aren't "Charming" the tech support, you are just badgering them and waiting until they do the normal human thing of trying to be helpful.
> You aren't "Charming" the tech support, you are just badgering them and waiting until they do the normal human thing of trying to be helpful.
Exactly, you just ask normally. There’s no need for any special tricks. What would a real employee who can’t log into their account say on the phone? Just say that.
Personally, I would tell you that whatever understanding you gain may still have bugs. Unless your understanding is as complete as a formal treatment of the code, then there may still be bugs in the code due to shared misunderstandings between author and reviewer. The biggest one is both having an incomplete understanding of what a library function does.
So while there may be some overlap, particularly if each person has full understanding of the code's dependencies, in the general case, understanding code and finding bugs are quite different aims.
If, by your definition of understanding, you can understand something without knowing how it works, then what would be the point in understanding it?
Your argument underscores the fact that understanding exists on a spectrum and that deep understanding can be difficult, or even impossible to achieve. Even formal verification seeks to verify certain properties of a system, and doesn't represent anything close to comprehensive understanding, and the process of formal verification is also guided by a fallible human. In a lot of ways, formal verification is just pushing up to review of a different "programming language."
So, good review is really hard, but ignoring the difficulty doesn't make it go away.
You’re confusing the difference between understanding and comprehending. The former is partial but useful within a context, the latter is total and is the result of mastery. One may understand an abstracted interface and how it works from the perspective of what it does in relation to solving a domain problem, but that doesn’t require them to know how it works at the level of any function/procedure’s mechanism.
While it may be true that formal verification doesn’t yield comprehensive understanding of code in certain forms, in a way it does by ensuring the code is only able to perform up to isomorphism with what the domain requires. Further understanding of how it accomplishes that is meaningless due to abstraction. But there are a number of techniques of formal methods that do require comprehensive understanding to be taken as valid, such as the structured proofs Dijkstra was famous for promoting. Also the classic example of Temporal Logic specs don’t compose, so the specifier must design the spec from scratch basically every time. Even using Hoare logic would require one to verify every line and all functions that are called for the purpose of solving a particular problem because of the difficulty of formally describing a function’s behavior in total.
So while I understand where you’re coming from, I do think that for any meaningful understanding regarding code, formal verification will provide it to the verifier. That is, as much as may reasonably be understood from the code is learned during any formal verification process.
