Yeah. This is very “using a saw to cut a piece of steak” meme. I feel like most obfuscations can already be thwarted anyway. At this point I just see it as some cargo culting thing that nerds do in their hacker news profiles.
Git internally identifies authors by email addresses. Github doesn't display the addresses in the web UI, but they're still present in the repository and can be extracted. Github can't prevent this because the author is part of the identity of the commit -- rewriting it would change commit IDs.
I am growing completely and utterly tired of this. It’s been…how many months now? Years? And there are still plenty of people in this and other communities getting by high-fiving each other pulling out the same old “LLMs aren’t human, did um, actually know, that LLMs were TRAINED on output from HUMANS?” line.
We all know. Nobody is on the other side of this. Who are you educating? And then we end up digging a little deeper and it turns out that the argument is ACTUALLY that the above is an indication of the technology’s usefulness. Which is only something that’s going to be problem by…how much use people get out of it.
Yeah. This is what always trips engineer-types up when dealing with legal. A contract isn’t code. There is usually, on both sides, a certain degree of BSing that goes on. Put another way, both parties are usually knowingly taking on risk associated with non-compliance. “We meet the security requirements in spirit only” is easily one of the more tame instances of this.
According to the writer's understanding of the law (and the risk tolerance they have for being caught) these are the terms they're putting to paper.
Generally, that means the writer's legal team feels confident that if everything goes sideways and they're standing in a courtroom, they have the best possible chance at winning the case with the language they used.
Now everyone around legal (e.g. sales, marketing, product, etc.) likely has different incentives. But the entire reason legal is somewhat firewalled is because they're the ones thinking about that future courtroom.
So it's less "there's a certain degree of BSing" and more that sometimes sales gets their preferred language and sometimes legal wins.
And of course, sometimes neither of them know relevant technical details and both their proposals are jibberish.
The person you’re responding to is being obtuse to the point where it feels like trolling or contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism. Certainly a bad-faith argument.
No true Scotsman! Throw your computer into a lake! Write your new darknet market ecommerce platform on sticky notes!
Why is “security” always a pissing constant with some people. I’d swear that I’d be condemned for locking my house at night instead of simply encasing myself in concrete for all eternity like Chernobyl. After all, it’s more secure!
Come off it. That’s what the severity rating is for. Anyone used to reading these sorts of reports comes to expect these things. And someone saying “all you have to do, is simply…” doesn’t change the fact that there’s suddenly more effort involved.
I was a student when this came out, so I obviously remember it well. Kids with loads of free time, that were tuned to rote memorise crap like regular expressions, ate this crap for breakfast.
Comments from someone that speaks as if they always expect the worst of Apple, telling everyone that they expect the worst of Apple, are a dime a dozen and do nothing to add to the conversation.
