pinkforest(she/her) 🦀

To me what is repulsive is they think if they let LLM re-write it in Rust it will be automatically safer somehow because supposedly if you ignore all the fundamentals but it passes the Rust borrow checker it must be "safe' ..

It's like the 90s leaky building crisis or #asbestos "magic mineral" thinking building is now cheap / easier where they forget the foundations, waterproofing etc. hidden stuff only to hide later when epidemic of cancers and respiratory diseases a'la "find out later" phase pops up

No, Rust is not asbestos itself but LLM driven slop is definitely "magic mineral" that is expensive to remediate later.

I haven't seen this much with google but guess laying off a lot of people isn't going well for them

Is there Anti-LLM license yet ?

@jarkko@social.kernel.org Micro$lop just vibed this repo - https://github.com/microsoft/RustTraining/issues/14

I didn't have King of England citing Magna Carta in my bingo card for 2026 🫠

@lispi314@udongein.xyz @dangoodin@infosec.exchange @cstross@wandering.shop yus. He was right. 10y ago:

Users should be asked for permission ... “Not using keys,” he added. ... Keys will be compromised. Try to limit the damage .. let the user be in control.”

Per-host random keys.. even with the “stupid” UEFI checks disabled entirely if required. “They are almost certainly going to be more secure than depending on some crazy root of trust based on a big company, with key signing authorities that trust anybody with a credit card.”

@humanhorseshoes@mastodon.world @janvlug@mastodon.social The problem is the horde of local enterpri$e consultants who each refer to and back each other in worst sense making the government refer to this racket which then buys the SaaS from Palantir / Oracle etc. Govts need to shift to open source and where the service providers are obligated using open components ran by themselves in local physical infrastructure.