How I understand it is that the admired language is one of those “I’ll start learning it tommorow” languages, that you however already talk about how great it is wherever you can, i.e see Rust on Lemmy.
I also find it funny (and relatable) how neovim is the most admired IDE. I totally relate to that, I’ve been telling myself “I’ll learn and switch to Helix tommorrow” for the past two years.
76% of all respondents are using or are planning to use AI tools in their development process this year, an increase from last year (70%). Many more developers are currently using AI tools this year, too (62% vs. 44%).
What the fuck. That’s horrifying. I also though that every sensible workplace bans the use of AI.
A friend was telling me about a discussion between CTO’s at a conference, where they were talking about whether it’s even worth it to hire junior developers anymore, since there’s a high risk of them just being “AI-raised”, without much (or any) experience of coding without AI. And, this survey result… I can see where they are coming from. The future of programming looks pretty bleak - our job will not be replaced. It will just get worse, with good developers being more of a rarity.
And the amount of people who use vim or neovim as their IDE is surprisingly high. Is it skewed by sysadmins?
That’s a good question, and I never through about it like that. I think that the lack of documentation isn’t that much of a problem, rather that the code stands out in the project in that it is complex to understand and requires some more though, effort and imagination to grasp, since it’s generic with lot of interfaces and polymorphism.
Now, that usually wouldn’t be much of an issue, however - the project is a game we’ve been actively working on in our spare time in a team of 2 programmers for the last 6 years, and we are all fed up with it and just want it to end. Most of the (pretty large by now) codebase is kind of simple - it’s a game code, after all, and since we started it when we were 20, there aren’t many overenginered ideas or systems, but everything is mostly written in the ugly, but simple and direct way, so if we had wanted to change something, we may have had to rewrite a part of it, but it never really needed much effort to understand what’s going on.
But now I need to change this code, which is one of the only parts that requires some kind of imagination and actually sitting down and trying to understand it, and since my motivation about the project is so low, it’s a pretty large hurdle to cross. One that is also unnecessary, since most of the generalism isn’t needed and will never be used. But since the code is written in such extensible way, it’s hard to just hack up a simple and ugly solution somewhere into it and be done with it, without really figuring out what the hell is going on.
A documentation wouldn’t help with that - it would still take the same amount of mental effort to be able to work with that code, which we generally lack in the project. I think that if I actually took the time to properly look through the code, figuring out what’s going on wouldn’t be too hard - the naming convention is pretty ok and it’s not that difficult, it just requires some mental effort.
I’m not trying to make excuses, the code very probably has problems, I’m just trying to better sort my thoughts about why I have so much problems working on it. It probably has more to do with my motivation, rather than the code in itself, and the fact that the complexity here wasn’t required, and is now a needless hurdle that actually hinders progress. Not due to it’s quality, but do to unrelated motivation issues and us having to basically force ourselves to work on and finish the damn project.
There’s a piece of code in our hobby game project that I’ve written after attending classes in college about how to write clean and SOLID code. It’s the most overengineered piece of shit I’ve ever written. I’m not saying it’s the fault of the lectures, of course it’s on me being a little bit over zealous, but it does check all the boxes - It’s a simple “show selectable list of stuff”, follows MVC, it’s extensible without rewriting to adittional data-types and formats, extensible view that can show any part of data you need, generic, and in general it could be used anywhere we need, for any kind of data.
There’s only one place where we need and use such list in our game.
I needed to rewrite a part of it, since the UI changed drastically, to not need this kind of list, while also adding events into the process. I haven’t seen the code for almost 4 years, and it’s attrocious. Super hard to understand what’s going on, since it’s too generic, interfaces and classes all over the place, and while it probably would be possible to rewrite the views for the new features we need, it’s just so complex that I don’t have the mental capacity to again figure out how it was supposed to work and properly wire it up again.
I’m not saying it’s fault of the classes, or SOLID. It’s entirely my fault, because the classes inspired and hyped me with ideas about what a clean code should look like, that I didn’t stop and think whether it’s really needed here, and went over-the-top and overengineered the solution. That’s what I’d say is the danger of such Clean Code books and classes - it’s easy to feel clever for making something that passes SOLID to the letter, but extensibility usually comes at a complexity, and it’s super important to stop and think - do I really need it?
I see. So, you having shares basically means you own part of the company assets, and if it were to for example shut down or get into huge trouble (so no one sensible would want to buy their shares), you’ll still get kind of compensated from the value of their remaining assets being sold? That kind of makes sense, and is the difference I was looking for.
It’s still weird, but a little bit more understandable than crypto, which is only literally stealing and scamming money from others (who will eventually in the end end up left with all the literally valueless crypto, and whose money basically paid for all your profit from it)
I see, stonks are way more bullshit than I thought. Is there anything else you can do with your stock, other than sell it to someone else? I always thought that crypto is such a scam especially because in the end, it has no value in itself, and the only thing you can do with it is sell it to someone else. If noone wants to buy it, well, you are fucked. Does it mean that stocks are exactly the same concept? I always thought it has something to do with the vaule of the company and the profits it earns, but if there is no way how to cash them out other than selling your piece of paper to someone, then it’s really the same? I suppose that unlike crypto, the stock price increases if the company is turning profit, but you still have to find someone to sell it to, right, so the price is increasing only because the demand from people willing to buy it is increasing due to it turning profit, but it’s not really tied to the actual value of the company, so it’s exactly like crypto? Or is the price set by some different mechanism than crypto is - pure demand from people willing to buy?
I’ve always thought that stocks have to pay dividents, like that’s the whole point of having it? I.e you get paid by the company regularly some of their profit, based on how much stock you have.
Does this mean that the only way how to make money from their stock now is to sell them to someone else? But then, it has nothing to do with the actual company and money they make, but you are paid by someone totally unrelated - the guy who buys the stock from you. I don’t get it, I suppose I’m missing something.
One place where I found AI usefull is in generating search queries in JIRA. Not having to deal with their query language every time I have to change a search filter, but being able to just use the built in AI to query in natural language has already saved me like two or three minutes in total in the last two months.
I really hope that CS will come up with recipes and emails where the board specificly “strongly recommended” that they reduce operation costs or denied internal investments. It probably won’t happen, because such pressure from investors is usually pretty vague, i.e they don’t literally tell you to cut corners, but they strongly suggest that if you won’t somehow increase revenue, you (the management) will have problems. Of course, it’s up to you how you do it, but to meet their often unrealistic demands, just doing a better job while also investing into internal failsafes is often simply not possible. It’s a loss-loss situation for CS, but I really hope they won’t loose this legal battle.
I’m sure there’s a lot of CS employees that would disagree with that, unfortunately there’s probably not much they can do about it.
I was just a few days ago giving my two weeks notice exactly for that reason. I’m getting so fed up with capitalism and companies working for the vultures who give zero fucks about what you do or whether you do it well or not, prioritizing profits over actually doing your job well. I don’t care about money, I worked in cybersec out of principle, to help people with their security. I don’t really care about money, as long as there’s job to be done for someone, I don’t really care if the project I’m working on is super profitable for me, as long as it at least breaks even. But no, we had to cut corners, basically scam our customers by selling products we had no qualified people for who barely scraped by enough results for the customer to not notice it. Non-existent R&D or training, because several milions of anuall profit are not enough. Fuck all of them, if I’m ever going to work again in cybersec, it will be a non-profit.
This OP’s article infuriates me, the nerves they have to demand more money for what’s entirely their failure, which they also directly cause in every company they touch. I’m sure that the fact that the failure was so devastating for most companies is also by large margin fault of their investors, some of which are probably also part of this lawsuit, that blocked investment into disaster recovery plans or backups, because their millions of profit per year felt low.
I feel like I’m getting pretty radicalized recently, ugh.
While I’m all for holding CS accountable for what happened, thisis not the way how to do it and to whom they should be accountable. If there’s any lawsuit, it should come from the customers who have been affected by the outage, not some fucking investors and shareholders that probably kept pressuring CS for the last several years to reduce costs and increase revenue, that are now scrambling to avoid consequences of their endless greed ruining companies they don’t care about by forcing endless growth at all costs and doing as much as they can to prevent internal investments, because that’s not what makes the line go up.
Fuck them. I hope they loose and have to eat their losses + expensive lawsuit. If CS would be able to actually invest their revenue internally, instead of it feeding pockets of greedy investors who give literaly zero fucks about the product or the service, this may not have happened.
I saw that happen at the cybersecurity company I was working at, when we got acquired by investors. Several milion of profit after costs suddenly wasn’t enough, and we had to reduce already non-existent internal projects or investments, that we have already been lacking to be able to do our job properly.
Isn’t that, like, illegal?
I’m not. I vaguely remember seeing it in some posts and comments, and it would explain it pretty well, so I kind of took it as a likely outcome. In hindsight, You are right, I shouldnt have been spreading hearsay. Thanks for the wakeup call, honestly!
We found a RCE on a server during pentest. In KOBOL.
Learning how to make a reverse shell in KOBOL was pretty unique experience. Thankfully, we found another path to DA ajd didn’t have to continue, but maan, learning KOBOL, especially of your use-case is niche, is borderline esoteric.
I see a lot of hate ITT on kernel-level EDRs, which I wouldn’t say they deserve. Sure, for your own use, an AV is sufficient and you don’t need an EDR, but they make a world of difference. I work in cybersecurity doing Red Teamings, so my job is mostly about bypassing such solutions and making malware/actions within the network that avoids being detected by it as much as possible, and ever since EDRs started getting popular, my job got several leagues harder.
The advantage of EDRs in comparison to AVs is that they can catch 0-days. AV will just look for signatures, a known pieces or snippets of malware code. EDR, on the other hand, looks for sequences of actions a process does, by scanning memory, logs and hooking syscalls. So, if for example you would make an entirely custom program that allocates memory as Read-Write-Execute, then load a crypto dll, unencrypt something into such memory, and then call a thread spawn syscall to spawn a thread on another process that runs it, and EDR would correlate such actions and get suspicious, while for regular AV, the code would probably look ok. Some EDRs even watch network packets and can catch suspicious communication, such as port scanning, large data extraction, or C2 communication.
Sure, in an ideal world, you would have users that never run malware, and network that is impenetrable. But you still get at avarage few % of people running random binaries that came from phishing attempts, or around 50% people that fall for vishing attacks in your company. Having an EDR increases your chances to avoid such attack almost exponentionally, and I would say that the advantage it gives to EDRs that they are kernel-level is well worth it.
I’m not defending CrowdStrike, they did mess up to the point where I bet that the amount of damages they caused worldwide is nowhere near the amount damages all cyberattacks they prevented would cause in total. But hating on kernel-level EDRs in general isn’t warranted here.
Kernel-level anti-cheat, on the other hand, can go burn in hell, and I hope that something similar will eventually happen with one of them. Fuck kernel level anti-cheats.
Why does this need to be installed here when previously agentless technologies was sufficient
As someone who works in offensive Cybersecurity doing Red Teamings, where most of my job is to bypass and evade such solutions, I can say that bypassing agent less technologies is so much easier than agented ones. While you can access most of the logs remotely, having an agent helps you extremely with catching 0-day malware, since you can scan memory (that one is a bitch to bypass and usually how we get caught), or hook syscalls which you can then correlate.
Oh, an unknown unsigned process just called RWX memory allocation, loaded a crypto binary, and spawned a thread in another process that’s trying to execute it? Better scan that memory and see what it’s up to. That is something you cannot do remotely.
From what I’ve heard, didn’t the issue happen not solely because of CS driver, but because of a MS update that was rolled out at the same time, and the changes the update made caused the CS driver to go haywire? If that’s the case, there’s not much MS or CS could have done to test it beforehand, especially if both updates rolled out at around the same time.
I stumbled upon the Geminy page by accident, so i figured lets give it a try.
I asked him in czech if he can also generate pictures. He said sure, and gave me examples about what to ask him.
So I asked him, again in czech, to generate a cat drinking a beer at a party.
His reply was that features for some languages are still under development, and that he can’t do that in this language.
So I asked him in english.
Ok, so I asked if he can find me the picture on the web, then.
Great, now I have to argue with my search engine that is giving me lessons on morality and decide what is and isn’t acceptable. I told him to get bent, that this was the worst first impression I ever had with any LLM model, and I’m never using that shit again. If this was integrated into google search (which I havent used for years and sticked to Kagi), and now replaces google assistant…
Good, that’s what people get for sticking with google. It brings me joy to see Google dig it’s own grave with such success.