H4ZB7

Announcing Purple Llama: Towards open trust and safety in the new world of generative AI

translation:

how we are advancing the police state or some bullshit. btw this is good for security and privacy

didn't read, not that i've ever read or used anything that has come out of myspace 2.0 anyway.

because of the hacker community circle jerk. there was no rational reason. it's like back when people used ANSI.SYS to display a text file with colors. it's leet factor and has no application in reality.

your entire reasoning is just that your UI (a shell) cant work with spaces. literally unix brain damage. one UI supports this one supports that, neither should have any pressure on how data in the system is formatted. your tool is just broken.

i like how thanks to un*x mentality i can just expect argv to be the most malicious possible implementation where the invoker can put anything in it and it will be there for the invokee, on the os family boasting its support for secure multi user systems:

/usr/sbin/./././some_admin_tool

/usr/sbin/../sbin/../sbin/some_admin_tool

/my_rigged_folder/haha (using symlink)

but i guess it would have required allocating a string or something which may have mattered 40 years ago even though we could have had a better OS in every way 20 years ago

and the same for the process list (in multiple ways, one you can see other people's passwords if they do HISTFILE=/dev/null something --password password, two you can just modify the process list)

and i get the last laugh because un*x lovers will reply to criticism such as "your CLI shit is retarded it logs the passwords to disk" with "NO BRO I USE HISTFILE=/dev/null" to which i reply "that's a lot of shit to type just to not log your password to disk" to which he replies with "NO BRO I USE SPACE PREFIX" and he's still wrong due to previous paragraph. similarily the un*x lover will boast about how he can detect malware / bad guys by using the process list yet nope it can just be bypassed like anything in un*x.

and don't even get me started with how moronic it is for a CLI program to "prompt" the user for a password to avoid this issue (actually you can use patches to make CLI paramters not shared to all users of the system, which is still stupid because none of that type of information should ever be shared in he first place: no other user's process should see any attribute of mine)

and the icing on the cake is the typical way people inside the industry are completely oblivious and say "no man this is actually amazing stuff here"

It's possible to write extremely powerful tools using shell scripts, and modularize your code. Bourne shell doesn't provide a clear mechanism for referencing relative files. By establishing a command file's base dir, you can reliably reference relative shell scripts.

wow a turing complete language is powerful who knew now if only we had one that wasn't just a cesspit of footguns most of which are there for no real reason and even historically were still invalid

why is this absolutely oblivious, joke of an article voted so high? web browsers are bloated and insecure, and there is practically no difference between them. tor browser tries (keyword) to reduce fingerprintability to make tor actually work as intended, beyond that there is no difference between firefox. icecat, palemoon, and all those forks are just firefox with 0.01% of the bloat removed. any "privacy" or "security" plugin just increases your attack surface and makes your fingerprint more unique (and 99% of websites collect this fingerprint and use it).

browsers are bloated and unfixable. consuming "privacy" and "security" products does not fix this.

Mullvad Browser: Best Built-in VPN Support

this text is literally written by a bot

why do i have to be exposed to these people who don't have the slightest clue about how the computer works? i want out. i don't want to use an ecosystem that includes these people to be part of what runs on my computer. why would i want arbitrary web pages to be able to connect to all my daemons that expected that outsiders can't connect to them including stuff like X and god knows what else. it's bad enough that browsers can already connect to localhost which has already single handedly enabled hundreds of thousands of vulnerabilities in the form of "attacker's page (even with js disabled) accesses your local daemon from some 10th level nested iframe ad crap"

i want out of this community. all these little people who have zero contextual understanding always requesting and implementing these features at all costs as long as the idea exists. this is a un*x problem at the core: if a feature conceptually exists, we must implement it at all costs. and another un*x problem here is having a global namespace (tcp port numbers) that things are just exposed to everything (either localhost or the network) by default when they could have easily just used an opaqaue handle that the machine operator can copy and paste into whatever application he wants to use it (no some openauth type shit that failed to be secure for 15 years is not what i have in mind)

this isn't surprising, the author is just cowboy coding. i *expect* anything in un\*x to require 5 hours for first reading the man page (which the article has shown to be useless, informal, and idiosyncratic - making it worse than nothing - in this case, which isn't surprising either) then conducting an investigation into weather the behavior is portable. now you know why real programmers hate un\*x - it's actually bogus garbage that only charlatans can grasp. just the cowboy programmers like it because they can feel like they're doing something when they're actually just making errors everywhere.

lol im just gonna leave those typos (automatically double escaped asterixes) there which were caused by writing this comment on a non logged in page after logging in on a different tab. perfect example of the same string flinging garbage

looks like an absolutely uninteresting boomer language, by the fact that it just shows standard imperative stuff followed by "wow it supports unicode, we are up to date"! (which is a misfeature, btw, i like being able to audit my code before running it (not that thats possible in the current mess of misconceived computers but yeah still it would be good to start doing things in the right direction).

its interesting that there is supposedly an os in oberon that actual uses the same language for the shell or something or the kernel is written in it or something like that but this page just makes me think its not worth looking into after all

why do people write articles about go features? when PHP was in its prime, almost nobody wrote blogs explaining how they found some philosophy in PHP. there's a reason for that.

when you see someone open their article explaining a language feature by talking of the implementation details or specific use cases, that's a language smell (of course all industrial PLs stink).

ironically go is the only post 80s language that uses "memory safe" as a marketing point (even though they all are), yet go has the most memory unsafety of post 80s industrial languages. you can parse something and pass on a slice somewhere. if you mistakenly slice that slice with a bigger size - this incorrect size being the programmer bounds check error - you restore some of the original array that was supposed to be cut off and teh next operation working on that slice will thus modify or leak data:

    package main
    import "fmt"
    func main(){
            a := [3]int{1,2,3}
            b := a[0:2]
            fmt.Println(b[1])
            c := b[0:3]
            fmt.Println(c[2])
    }

    $ go run a.go
    2
    3

the point here is that this footgun doesnt even have a real point outside of some insane performance argument. nobody would ever design something like this without massive cognitive dissonance (aside from industrial PLs, which just copy and modify the previous industrial PL, C in this case). all go's primitives are rigged like this with unintuitive behaviors. its amazing how much such a simple language with small scope can get wrong. and i expect nothing less from people who go around saying "zeroeth". DAY OF THE BOBCAT SOON

something something privilege

text only i'm a big guy now

no indication of what this group actually was unless i perhaps read every paragraph

i liked the thing because of camaraderie

now you know why the hacker scene was always garbage. and internet forums. it's all mediocre people who are just there for camaraderie and jerking each other off over these false virtues.

when i was 9 and first used the web i was annoyed by how pages can subvert you and steal focus and show popups (and do audio via flash) etc and even then it was unambiguously obvious that this is a misfeature that should not exist. how do these people have such cognitive dissonance over such simple questions other than being so full of themselves that they think pretending to be open minded by pondering such obvious questions is fooling anyone.

you are designing the fabric of a medium where the main use case is to open 20 pages at once from completely random strangers across the internet. OBVIOUSLY it should not autoplay sound by default.

(also the same reasoning explains why JS should not be a thing, because it slows everything down and causes bugs by letting casuals design the fabric instead of the browser just coming with what's needed (you'd think they can do this with trillions of man hours))

Don't pretend that CSS is hard.

if i was to implement a browser that could properly render CSS for some given set of real life scenarios i would be getting back to you in 100 years. paying tax, banking, trading academic literature should not rely on a magazine formatting jenga puzzle

that analogy is literally 100% invalid and you're a moron up his own ass for even suggesting it.

inheritance is NOT for liskov substitution, and not even OOP fans will argue that as most even consider inheritance a mistake. inheritance is specifically to make a subclass with the same methods and allow overriding a select few. it's basically just a syntactic shortcut. you get the added bonus that it of course still satisfies the interface of the parent, which is the semantic part, but this is a vanishingly small benefit

he probably meant on the terminal but he's just LARPing like every other UN*X enthusiast. they like to create false dilemmas like "legacy" and "embedded"* to justify their bloated poorly implemented string flinging machine that has another 100KLOC to parse the input line (readline)

imagine someone pitching shell programming today. the response would be: LOL so you mean each language will have a common subset of syntax that supposdely works the same across all of them? how can anyone ever program that way?

* ironically, a big part of why embedded products are so flaky is just because of their shell scripts

this is a perfect example of how UN*Xoids like to enamor themselves that they are the last bastion of responsible devs maintaining the 30 year old system that was never good to begin with from breaking

"java trying to force its world view" is the correct way to design a programming language, just java is a bad language, and only half way forces its world view when it has to be 100% for this idea to work. in the sense that there shouldn't be things like int32 in a high level language.

also the OOP paradigm makes no sense and is just pseudoscience. i can't even think of a valid reason to use objects once you get past the cat/dog/animal example which only makes no sense because the proposed problem has no concrete requirements. there are no small examples where objects make sense, and for any big example it would require days of analysis to reach a conclusion. there are lots of invalid reasons, like some syntactic convenience of x.fff().zzz(), this example being invalid because that syntactic benefit can be better achieved by a composition operator like in bash: x | fff | zzz

if i look at any OOP codebase the first thing ill see is someone pointlessly loads up some data into an object and calls obj.method() which then just unloads the data as if they were just parameters to that function. why did you even make the object in the first place? because OOP braindamage, simple. you've been trained that this is somehow the ethically correct way to do things.

the idea that objects provide some new type of abstraction is just nonsense. those constructs were already doable in ML as well as by convention in C or any imperative language, which is how most such languages are in fact written. all OO adds is interfaces which are done better by many other languages, and inheritance which is just a joke.

nope, it's definitely just for vanity. it will be hard to explain that on a forum dedicated to people whose work revolves around upholding this myth, though. html not being readable without css is a bug or bad positioning. i would never design a document format that requires something as complex as css to be readable. anyway i find sites that use just plain default html readable. one big mistake people make is to let their browser take up a full widescreen monitor on such pages. the fact that the browser tries to be the OS discourages them from resizing it (windows+left on windows or gnome or the equivalent on windows is enough). its mostly the tables (iirc) that look like crap, even though they didn't have to

because the web is broken in every way imaginable for no reason and should have been discontinued about 14 years ago. but this is really old, now my favorite is dns rebinding [1]. this has to be one of the most beautiful examples of how core web devs do not understand ANYTHING. every single thing they have ever done is a misconception. not a single web dev related disclosure for the last 20 years has given me insight on how to design secure systems; it's always just a thing that would not exist in any alternate design.

1. https://github.com/mpgn/ByP-SOP

At the time of the punk icons’ rise to fame, capital punishment remained on the statute books for the crime of high treason even though it had been abolished for all other crimes. While it’s unlikely Lydon and his bandmates would have been charged with that offense, media speculation called for them to be accused of treason for the lyrics to “God Save the Queen” in 1977.

https://ultimateclassicrock.com/john-lydon-death-penalty-sex...

the solution here is simple: a police officer in your face means that if you disobey them in any way, you could be insta killed with their insta kill buttons. this means that they hold an incredibly dangerous job that you should not allowed to participate in if you're irrational or a self interested coward. any cop or higher up who does this shit should be instafired. a cop who kills someone without a credible threat should be hung (or at least jailed for a VERY long time, remember, these same people would jail you for a hundred years for dealing weed just a few years ago and now they say it's fine). a cop who suffocates someone to death because he wants to look cool should also be hung. the only reason you disagree with such basic order is because you don't actually want order but you are in an us vs them war between cops and so called anti cops. let's face it, a large amount of police, probably 50% or more, are belligerent tough power tripping types, and newspaper consuming cowards that make up 99% of the west allow them to continue to be this way. i am not anti police, but we do have about 100x more policing than we need, and we're forced to pay insane amounts of tax for it too

it doesnt solve the problem

give me functions that output typed data. none of this string parsing shit. the sole fact that they have syntax to call bash: $() makes me not want to use this ever. this is why every single effort like this is wasted. i used to get excited by these projects and after about 2 of them i realized it's always a bunch of crap duct taped together, and also bends over to be compatible with un*x and so everything is ruined.

they're also often so poorly implemented, like with those early fancy python shells they'd go beserk if one command you execute goes into a time consuming process (or infinite loop) whereas why the hell can i not just run another command below while waiting for the one above to complete? this is the thought i had in 2008. i could have made something better out of my ass. really, there's no other way to put it.

here's another thing: a language console should operate on semantic objects, not text. as in, you move objects around to program in it. editing code by typing one character at a time is too slow. no amount of vim or emacs fixes this. in fact, we can just scrap those un*x garbage (along with the rest of un*x) while we're at it, when implementing an OS that works on actual meaningful data instead of text, and semantic objects instead of a language represented by text.

nope, escaping is definitely worse in bash (and all shells) than real languages.

man bash is not long

it's literally longer than reading the Go spec and even after reading it several times i still can't code bash

Can you blame it on the shell?

yes, because the mere act of comparing two variables in bash is about 100x harder than any other language (not to mention it literally straight up adds undocumented RCE vectors to your code for example when you use [[...]])

ahh, the myth of the pragmatist who outsmarts the academic. one day you will grow up. bash is a terrible language, and no academic background is needed to come to this conclusion

...aaand if you actually think this through you will just come to the conclusion

  - piping isn't anything special, its just an operator
  - piping has like 10 different things you need to account for, just a bunch of stuff is chosen FOR you (heuristically) in the shell. for example IFS. whether its correct for a given pipeline is an entirely different question
  - any form of error handling in a pipeline is a syntactic disaster mostly because shell syntax completely sucks
  - every second program in the pipeline will literally just execute code from the input until you figure out the secret option to make it not do that anymore
  - data has a structure, whether you think it does or not. whenever you fail to account for all possible cases (doesn't help that these tools mostly don't have any specified format) of that (such as in most shell scripts), you are opening holes for bugs. both sides of the pipe must use the same data structure (and since its shell that means encoding it to text which changes depending on your locale and encoding).
  - for most cases you don't even need pipes:
  a = f()
  g(a)
  or just g(f())
  piping is just premature optimization like lazy evaluation. composing functions is actually simpler, just shells have no (good) way to do it.

exactly this.

you could also have the console on our own machine with 1+GHz that passes code to the embedded box to execute, or one of a million other variations on this theme. but nooo we gotta LARP about how well we support legacy systems which is why are systems are so broken after doing this for 50 years. oh yeah and embedded is dead, it's just high end boxes with ubuntu on them now. and last but not least i hope to god i never have unix on something that actually needs to be embedded for all of performance, stability and security reasons.

yes, the person you are replying to is not an expert at UK politics, but then you went right off the hinges with the rest of your post. the UK is one of the biggest police states in the west. the king of punk was to be executed for insulting the queen just 40 or whatever years ago. it was or is illegal to give someone the middle finger. someone got jail for 60 days for saying something racist on twitter or facebook. the UK literally favors "decency" over basic freedoms