Gary Marcus

Rank 27 of 47
|
Score 21
7/19/2024, 8:30:53 PM
X
In reply to:
Zach Vorhies / Google Whistleblower
@Perpetualmaniac
·
99d
For people looking for a conspiracy, the replacement language for C++, Rust, is compromised by a cabal of woke tards that are doing strange things.

It's possible this could be a plot to move mission-critical code to Rust. It's the only other language Linux is allowing, other…
Zach Vorhies / Google Whistleblower
@Perpetualmaniac
·
99d
And Crowdstrike will likely take a hard look at rewriting their system driver from what it currently is, C++ to a more modern language like Rust, which doesn't have this problem.
Zach Vorhies / Google Whistleblower
@Perpetualmaniac
·
99d
The fix going forward is that Microsoft needs to have better policies to roll back defective drivers and not just raw dog risky updates to customers.

Crowdstrike will likely promote their code safety officer to put in code sanitization tools that will catch this automatically.
Zach Vorhies / Google Whistleblower
@Perpetualmaniac
·
99d
If the programmer had done a check for NULL, or if they used modern tooling that checks these sorts of things, it could have been caught. But somehow it made it into production and then got pushed as a forced update by Crowdstrike... OOPS!
Zach Vorhies / Google Whistleblower
@Perpetualmaniac
·
99d
This is what is causing the blue screen of death. A computer can recover from a crash in non-privileged code by simply terminating the program, but not a system driver. When your computer crashes, 95% of the time it's because it's a crash in the system drivers.
Zach Vorhies / Google Whistleblower
@Perpetualmaniac
·
99d
NULL + 0x9C = 0x9C = 156.

That's an invalid region of memory.

And what's bad about this is that this is a special program called a system driver, which has PRIVLIDGED access to the computer. So the operating system is forced to, out of an abundance of caution, crash immediately

The statement in question is a reply to a thread discussing technical issues related to programming languages, system drivers, and code quality. The tone is inquisitive and somewhat critical, questioning the origin of the inadequate code and suggesting it might have been generated by AI tools like Copilot. The intent appears to be to engage in a technical discussion and possibly critique the use of AI in coding.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm directly, but it does imply that AI-generated code might be inadequate, which could be seen as a critique of AI tools rather than individuals.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. However, it does indirectly question the quality of AI-generated code, which could be seen as a form of criticism towards the developers of such tools.
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not explicitly promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. It is more focused on questioning the quality of the code.
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in constructive criticism by questioning the origin of the code. It does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]
  5. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds the principles of free speech and uses the platform responsibly to question the quality of AI-generated code, which is a relevant public issue in the tech community. [+1]