staticassertion

10 ms·

361.
by staticassertion 6mo ago
This is a problem but fwiw libc's should be falling back to old system calls. You can block clone3 today and see that your libc will fall back to clone.
362.
by staticassertion 6mo ago
I don't think so. I've never had Claude reject the idea of finding a vulnerability (unlike ChatGPT). The issue is that it's limited by its training set. It'll be trained on things like UAF, it won't be trained on th
363.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
People should really just use integers. It's funny how fast it is to just implement a counter and how much people rely on UUIDs to avoid it. If you already use postgres somewhere, just create a "counter" table for your namesp
364.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
I don't really respond to email. I prefer to keep things scoped to single discussions on forums. Beyond that, I'm simply not an expert on these topics so I suspect we'll hit limits almost immediately to what I can meaningfull
365.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
I don't think that matters at all.
366.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
I have a few skills for this that I plug into `cargo-vet`. The idea is straightforward - where possible, I rely on a few trusted reviewers (Google, Mozilla), but for new deps that don't fall into the "reviewed by humans" that
367.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
I don't think this is an issue of experience here. I don't know that anyone has claimed that LLMs can create truly novel solutions to complex problems given that the technology is token prediction.
368.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47274478
369.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
I suppose it's mixed results but a coverage report should give you "these exact lines are uncovered" and it becomes pretty straightforward to see "ah yeah that error condition isn't tracked, the behavior should be X
370.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
My point is that "verifiable testcases" works great for proving "this is vulnerable" but LLMs are still risky if you believe "this is safe", which you can't easily prove. My point is that you need to be ve
371.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
I've had mixed results. I find that agents can be great for: 1. Producing new tests to increase coverage. Migrating you to property testing. Setting up fuzzing. Setting up more static analysis tooling. All of that would normally take &
372.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
> Yes, I am confident. But not ambiguous that my confidence is backed up with some aesthetic factors, not just squeezing out the hand waving. I think that's fine. I'm actually sort of agnostic about it myself. I find nothing pa
373.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
Maybe, but I'm not really convinced. LLMs make some aspects of the job faster, mainly I don't have to type anymore. But... that was always a relatively small portion of the job. Design, understanding constraints, maintaining and o
374.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
You can do novel work with an LLM. You can. The LLM can't. It can be an aid - exploring papers, gathering information, helping to validate, etc. It can't do the actual novel part, fundamentally it is limited to what it is trai
375.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
When it comes to novel work, LLMs become "fast typers" for me and little more. They accelerate testing phases but that's it. The bar for novelty isn't very high either - "make this specific system scale in a way tha
376.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
> Brut facts. Principle of Sufficient Reason. I am getting a vocabulary bump here. I spent some time further expanding my vocabulary on related concepts on Wikipedia. Glad to hear it. I'm not an expert on these topics, so it's
377.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
I think we're running across the varying forms of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which is, again, a somewhat contentious area of philosophy. > I think everything is fully determined, even if we may not ever achieve a full expla
378.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
> My understanding of brute facts, is they are free values in theory, but measured values in practice. And somehow we just accept experimental measurements of some things as the end of explanation. What you accept as a brute fact is cond
379.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
I think you just aren't understanding what it means to be "brute". It does not mean "caused externally", it means "the end of the explanatory chain has been reached". If you want to say that the explanator
380.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
No, that means it's not a brute contingent fact . It is still a brute fact. And it is a metaphysical claim that there is no alternative. > And that it can't be the full reality if it is not self-determining, draws from anyth
381.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
I mean, again, these are just claims and, once again, another brute fact. > Reality was always going to be something that includes structure, that is somehow inevitable, the only possibility, not something selected or manufactured by s
382.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
I mean, these are all just metaphysical claims. It also doesn't seem to address brute facts, which would be within reality, so it seems sort of pointless. It also doesn't seem to address infinite regresses. Even if I grant your &q
383.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
Yes, but nothing else that you've said follows from that. For example, > One is, nothing can be created (no external source), or destroyed (no external dump), so any local structures can be transformed, but must be conserved in some
384.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
I'm confused because you seem to be using the term tautology totally incorrectly. Your post is very confusing for this reason, because you're very clearly just appealing to a brute contingent fact, if not now multiple brute contin
385.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
> Infinite regress is avoided by co-constraints, such as consistency and conservation. You have to explain these constraints if you don't want them to be brute. edit: > Edit: Sorry didn't see you had already replied. It&#x27
386.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
> So yes, I deny the coherence of the concept of "brute facts". Cool, that is fine. I deny lots of things as well. It's a position you can hold. > If something is determined, something determined it. That's fine bu
387.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
I just don't really see the point in hedging like that tbh. I think you could justify almost anything on "it could be useful", but why pay the cost now? Eh.
388.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
Look, I really don't care to explain this. You can reject brute contingencies, as I said. If you want to do so, great. Just don't pretend that it's indefensible, your view doesn't even align with the majority of scientis
389.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
TBH I don't think it's worth the context space to do this. I'm skeptical that this would have any meaningful benefits vs just investing in targeted docs, skills, etc. I already keep a "benchmarks.md" file to track c
390.
by staticassertion 7mo ago
I couldn't feel more strongly in the other direction. The fewer programs running on my computer, the better. By far my preference is that "random dev code" gets placed into the strongest possible sandbox, and that's the

More ›