I’m not totally clear on why signals are used here in the first place. Arguably most C code doesn’t “need” to use signals in complex ways, either.

The trope will be “old” once the mainstream view is no longer that C-style memory management is “good enough”.

That said, this particular vulnerability was primarily due to how signals work, which I understand to be kind of unavoidably terrible in any language.

Why do you think most early adopters use Windows exclusively?

I mean to be fair, that’s a pretty useful tool.

The logo and “join our Discord” text are more than half cut off for me. Is that the original cropping, or is it a client (Jerboa) issue?

Perl programs are, by definition, text. So “paint splatters are valid Perl” implies that there’s a mapping from paint splatters to text.

Do you have a suggested mapping of paint splatters to text that would be more “accurate” than OCR? And do you really think it would result in fewer valid Perl programs?

I’m not familiar with pyo3_async, but I don’t think you can force Python asyncio to use the Tokio event loop. This is discussed in the documentation of a different PyO3 async crate, pyo3-asyblncio: https://docs.rs/pyo3-asyncio/latest/pyo3_asyncio/#why-two-event-loops

No, you leapt directly from what I said, which was relevant on its own, to an absurdly stronger claim.

I didn’t say that humans and AI are the same. I think the original comment, that modern AI is “smart enough to be tricked”, is essentially true: not in the sense that humans are conscious of being “tricked”, but in a similar way to how humans can be misled or can misunderstand a rule they’re supposed to be following. That’s certainly a property of the complexity of system, and the comment below it, to which I originally responded, seemed to imply that being “too complicated to have precise guidelines” somehow demonstrates that AI are not “smart”. But of course “smart” entities, such as humans, share that exact property of being “too complicated to have precise guidelines”, which was my point!

…I didn’t say that it does.

We can create rules and a human can understand if they are breaking them or not…

So I take it you are not a lawyer, nor any sort of compliance specialist?

They aren’t thinking about it and deciding it’s the right thing to do.

That’s almost certainly true; and I’m not trying to insinuate that AI is anywhere near true human-level intelligence yet. But it’s certainly got some surprisingly similar behaviors.

Have you considered that one property of actual, real-life human intelligence is being “too complicated to have precise guidelines”?

That’s true in C as well, though. This is what people mean when they say things like “undefined behavior can result in time travel”.

The difference is twofold:

• Rust’s rules for valid unsafe code are not completely formalized yet. This means that there are open questions about whether particularly complex patterns in unsafe code will be guaranteed by future versions of the compiler to be sound. Conversely, the C and C++ spec are generally sufficient to determine whether any particular piece of code has undefined behavior, even if actually analyzing it to find out is not possible automatically using existing static analysis tools.
• Because safe Rust is so strict about what it permits, the compiler is able to make more aggressive optimizations; in theory, this could indeed cause undefined behavior to be “worse” at runtime than a comparable situation in a globally-unsafe language. I’m unaware of any actual examples of that phenomenon, though.

That’s not a download button for the program. But there is indeed a link to the release page right on the home page of the project, so you’re still correct.