Granting that I think X should have stronger content policies and technological interventions to bad behavior as a matter of business, I do think that the X Safety's team position[0] is the only workable legal standard here. Any sufficiently useful AI product will _inevitably_ be usable, at minimum via subversion of their safety controls, to violate current (or future!) laws, and so I don't see how it's viable to prosecute legal violations at the level of the AI model or tool developers, especially if the platform is itself still moderating the actually illegal content. Obviously X is playing much looser with their safety controls than their competitors, but we're just debating over degrees rather than principles at that point.
[0]
> Anyone using or prompting Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content.
What you want isn't really "output C++ code that is pedantically equivalent to this Fortran code but with the array indexing fixed up", it's usually more like "translate this Fortran module into something that I can offload to a GPU using CUDA/ROCm/etc. with the same high level semantics, but GPU-friendly low level optimizations", and the exact composition of those low level bits probably don't look exactly like a loop-by-loop translation.
The code here looks to be essentially C with different syntax - every function marked unsafe, all resources manually managed. Sorry to be blunt, but what's the point of this?
And I don't know how I missed this, but attempting to use the `UNICODE_STRING` returned in `string_to_ustring` is a guaranteed use after free. If you're interested in writing Windows kernel code, this is not the place to start.
I'm glad to see that Microsoft is investing in Rust bindings for WDK[0], but browsing the repo, there's really no point in using this over C since they haven't bothered to invest in safe, Rust native bindings. The kmdf example[1] is like 50% "SAFETY:" comments because they're stuck using the straight C bindings for every WDK API.
`boost_write` doesn't appear to validate the length of the user supplied buffer before casting and dereferencing either, so that's a kernel-mode OOB read. Not sure how exploitable this actually is though.
Yeah, I totally get that, but I suppose my argument would be is if you're going to bother writing your driver in Rust, until there are more mature Rust bindings for the OS interfaces, you might as well only write your most safety-sensitive business logic in Rust, and then write all the interfacing with the OS in C.
> wdk: Safe idiomatic bindings to APIs available in the Windows Development Kit (WDK)
And then if you look at that crate they've only implemented dbg_break, print, spinlock, and timer.
I'd take this as a sign that the bindings are a work in progress.
If you're going to write your driver in Rust... honestly I'd recommend just writing the `wdk` crate bindings you need for your driver and probably even upstreaming them. Wrapping FFI bindings in safe abstractions is usually pretty easy - but it's definitely the case that without them rust doesn't give you much.
This sample is using `wdk_sys` bindings directly without wrapping them... which is basically never the recommended way of interacting with the FFI in rust.
Also a ton of ALL CAPS TYPES. Are we seriously throwing out all of the standard Rust naming conventions to adopt the ancient Windows naming-as-typing crap?
That doesn't bother me per-se - those all caps names are pretty much all directly from the standard C bindings, and it makes sense to preserve that naming for the sake of having that 1:1 mapping with the ground truth C definition.
The actual issue here is that this "simple driver in Rust" is having to touch those direct C bindings at all - if Microsoft is going to advertise that they have support for writing drivers in Rust, that should presumably mean an API surface that's native to the language.
That way functions can be marked as accurate/"ok" to call in safe code by the author of the bindings. They could absolutely not be safe; in that case, the binding author is in error marking it so.
This is kind of a weird framing. 30 days is longer period than probably acceptable, but most people get regular, lagging biweekly paychecks rather than getting their paycheck paid out continuously in infinitesimal chunks.
They don't want to treat these workers as employees (so they can skip paying out benefits) but pay them like employees (at the end of the month; in fact even worse than that).
Given that their average post seems to only get 10s of interactions despite their account having 10 million followers, I don’t think they were getting much out of being on X anyway.
I think you can put it differently: Twitter has changed, the Guardian's target market remains the same. By by now there are so few educated middleclass people on Twitter that as a channel to that market, it's "simply not worth sinking more resources into" as the article says.
I’ve been thinking about this. X appears to be a far right extremist website exactly because extremist far left left en masse, leaving the square to far right people and people that don’t define themselves by what website they have an account on.
So yeah, counter-intuitive, but X appears right-y because leftists left.
Insane how many words the author uses to capture "costs are higher for US game studios because salaries are higher". There's no actual secret second thing and it's hilarious watching the author try to find a way to spin "people make more money" into a problem with capitalism.
That begs the question though. That's what the "many words" are used to explain.
But yes, inflation + rising housing costs + a lack of retention + a lack of governmetn interest in the arts are all indeed "a problem with capitalism". You should read those words a bit more closely.
Anger at the Kafkaesque ministrations of the neo-feudal lords is a valid emotion. Let's not normalize the passive, defeatist acceptance of abusive corporate culture. One doesn't need to be angry, but that's a privilege of someone who isn't living paycheck to paycheck.
> Anger at the Kafkaesque ministrations of the neo-feudal lords is a valid emotion.
I mean, yes. And it'll make Mr Angry feel worse, make the people around him feel worse, and make the world worse. So the recommendation is don't do that. If someone is going to do something productive after being sacked, learning to do it out of a place of love is a skill well worth picking up. Makes the world better and all that.
I think this is a bit of a shallow read on what anger is – one can rightfully feel angry at an injustice and use that motivation to effect positive change.
I also prefer—on a personal level—to set anger aside. But anger is probably one of the strongest forces driving individuals to "make the world better".
> But anger is probably one of the strongest forces driving individuals to "make the world better".
Are you thinking of an instance? Anger typically locks in the status-quo by causing people to fight each other. Greed on the other hand has pushed us from farming monkeys into modern society with a material existence that was hitherto unthinkably comfortable. Harnessing greed created and powers the modern engine of wealth creation. And greed works best when people are thoughtful, patient, kind and calm.
Typically anger just makes people do things that are hasty and stupid. I'm not thinking of situations where I've seen it get much done. It isn't an emotion that can power long term, strategic plans - or at least not good ones. Tends to burn out or be destructive.
Greed makes people do things that are hasty and stupid. Love makes people do things that are hasty and stupid. ... All emotions are by definition impulsive and irrational and thus hasty and stupid. You are cherry picking.
> All emotions are by definition impulsive and irrational and thus hasty and stupid
That isn't true. Emotions are usually rational, and may or may not be swift. Consider greed - it can be harnessed to power long-term plans, as can be seen when looking at the economy. And that is hardly cherry picking, we're surrounded by examples and it is foundational to the theory of why it all works. Consider someone saving up money to buy a fancy car. That might be a decision powered by love; is probably powered by greed and it seems a stretch to say people would do that because they were really angry with the world.
Anger doesn't have the same staying power as positive emotions, or more neutral emotions like greed.
> You are cherry picking.
You may note I'm explicitly asking Mr. matthewmacleod to cherry pick.
Headline actors are inevitably going to be (already are?) selling the rights to their voice and likeness, setting up perpetual revenue streams for their estates, and in the next few years the parameters of those rights will almost assuredly be in every contract.
That could be amended in an explicit contract or quit the union. Say you are very sick/old/whatever/dontcare and need some money and have not had a gig in 10 years? I am will to bet we see a few of those soon. Then soon after the rise of the 'scanned' actor with no such contract but one that gives away those likenesses. They will be bought in packs like game assets.
I can tell you from personal experience they will not repair Apple Watches - they recycle them and charge a pretty hefty replacement fee if you do not have AppleCare+. I had a Stainless Steel Apple Watch Series 6 just outside the 1 year warranty. The display came dis-attached from the frame, either because the adhesive failed, or the battery had swollen. Like, literally I was just driving down the road and the display started hanging off the watch from its flex. The Apple Store wanted $400 to replace it - would not even evaluate a repair.
Yeah, if you're out of warranty, Apple's m.o. is also to just buy a new device as they don't repair them or they quote you a cost to "repair it" that's as much as a new product, to discourage you from that track and encourage you to buy a new one instead.
[0] > Anyone using or prompting Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content.