Ask your local unemployment benefits office if Nope™ is right for you!
7,859 karma · joined April 5, 2021
I'm not sure why you got down voted. Maybe people are perceiving some subtext that I'm not.
That's the rule for criminal court in the US, but each of us is free to pick his own standard for his own purposes.
I wonder if that's occurred to him.
Yet.
I'm still trying to calibrate my take on this view.
If attacks are randomly chosen from the set of all potential vulnerabilities, without the attacker knowing which ones had been patched, then that logic clearly makes sense.
But in an adversarial situation where the attacker can guess which vulnerabilities you still have unpatched, or can try many different attack vectors, then having already patched some other vulnerabilities doesn't matter so much.
I guess reality is more complicated though.
Unfortunately, this may be akin to the situation of "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."
It's amazing how much of America's political stability might rest not on the law, but rather on the self-restraint of each cohort's leadership.
Assuming it was an intentional, it could be a reference to one particularly violent piece of furniture. (I forget what kind exactly, it's been a while.)
> although it's off by a half century, roughly, if you include the Jewish diaspora.
Mind expanding on this part?
IIUC, he claims that the concept of "soul" is something that the wasn't really present in the Jewish worldview of Jesus' time. Rather, it's something that later theologians (Aquinas?) picked up from Greek philosophy (Platonism?).
I wonder if that means Wright would have a different take on the whole "only humans have souls" idea. (Beyond just differing on the choice of terminology, I mean.)
Can you expand on this? Sounds like an interesting discussion.
We can all agree that both human "experts" and LLMs can sometimes be right, and sometimes be confidently wrong.
But that doesn't imply that they're equally fit for purpose. It just means that we can't use that simple shortcut to conclude that one is inferior to the other.
So where do we go from here?
As flawed as this new approach might turn out to be, the traditional approach may (or may not) have an even worse probability of success.
I'd think that depends on the model of responsibility at play.
For example, suppose I hire a building contractor to build a house, and the electrician he subcontracts makes mistake.
From my perspective, the prime contractor is equally responsible for that mistake regardless of whether he used a subcontractor, or did the work himself but used a broken tool.
This doesn't make the electrician any less of a "person" in the deeply important ways, but it's not a distinction that's relevant to my handling of the problem.
Or employable. Which sucks if you're over 50.
Are there any good models for those tasks that can work in an air-gapped enclave?
My impression is that the market currently rewards visible software functionality with little concern for invisible risk.
If we flipped the script, and investors were personally, criminally, and civilly liable for computer breaches, I imagine this problem would disappear almost overnight.
Any suggestions for a vm/container setup that works on a Linux host, provides the safety net you describe, and is still capable enough to try out all these things that people are talking about?
Awesome project, regardless.
(Just stating this as a data point for you.)
I assume you're using hyperbole.
Some of us are very aware and concerned about the risk. But like Cassandra from Greek mythology, we see the coming disaster and feel powerless to stop it.