If the user is prompted to give permission for the application to have access to this information then at least you know which ones are doing it and can avoid using them if you are worried about it.
In the case that was mentioned above, hardware frequently has drivers which can run as part of the kernel and can read the memory of other processes, among other things. A user of some hardware would be very likely to install a driver for it, without realizing that a malicious driver can basically do whatever it wants on their system.
In practice, if the software one wants to use is not trustable, then it shouldn't be run, at least on current mainstream desktop operating systems.
I used to hear this all the time back in the early 2000's. It's far from a new idea.
The version I heard (or at least the one which stuck in my head) was "your job is not to write code, your job is to solve problems".
edit:
I wish this was more mentioned more frequently these days. I see junior developers very focused on superficial aspects of code and specific "cool" frameworks these days. Often I find myself asking "what problem does this solve? What are the trade-offs with your approach? etc." and it's just crickets. I think we have made a lot of progress with modern frameworks, tools, etc. but I also think there is something from the "old days" of programming which we have lost, which I think we should have fought a bit more to keep.
I mentor a few friends and my first question when they come to me for troubleshooting is: What's the problem you're having and what has you tried so far? Then I restrict them from talking in too specific technical terms. Instead I orient the conversation to the appropriate metaphor, and more often than not, they can see the solution by themselves (unless it's really a technical implementation issue).
According to the article you linked, that was debated even at the time:
> PC Magazine Editor in Chief Lance Ulanoff criticized the campaign's use of the term "PC" to refer specifically to IBM PC compatible, or Wintel, computers, noting that this usage, though common, is incorrect, as the Macintosh is also a personal computer.
But it's not the PC(the IBM 5150) or one of it's inheritor machines.
To be honest I agree with you, If it is intended as a personal computer it's a PC. Yes tablets and phones(Pocket Computer???) included. But I understand the argument that a PC is a specific architecture. it's a wrong argument, but I get it.
Ruby and Rails anre amazing. I love Rails and recommend it for most small to medium sized projects. What I find frustrating though is the constant hum of people using “Ruby is slow” as the excuse for every problem they have. Everyone I know using Rails is in the process of convincing everyone that they have outgrown its capabilities and need to move onto something “more mature”. I also see a lot of people using Rails but replacing its components with others. A. If part of what makes Rails powerful is that it comes with pretty much everything you need, replacing them without good reason (there usually isn’t one) erodes the value you get from Rails.
You can cross wherever and whenever is safe to do so. If traffic conditions don’t facilitate this, pedestrian crossings provide guaranteed crossing points where pedestrians have right of way.
Basically it means that pedestrians are allowed to cross the road anywhere, anytime, but they still have to yield to car traffic except at pedestrian crossings without a semaphore or at the Walk signal. It's a very common-sense law.
> they still have to yield to car traffic except at pedestrian crossings without a semaphore or at the Walk signal.
This isn't true. Car traffic must yield to pedestrians. Pedestrians don't always have the right of way, but you (hopefully obviously) can't just arbitrarily mow them down.
The only time this would matter is if you hit someone and it went to court. Thus in practice, you have to yield to pedestrians whenever you can reasonably do so. It's actually written into NY law (section 1146: "Due Care").
No, this is a misunderstanding of what right of way means. Drivers are never allowed to intentionally cause accidents, either with other cars or with pedestrians. If you have right of way in an intersection but a car is nevertheless not yielding to you, you are not allowed to plow into them if you can reasonably avoid it. That doesn't mean that you don't actually have right of way, or that you need to stop at every intersection to make sure that someone is not yielding.
The same is true with pedestrians crossing where they have to yield to cars. It's their responsibility to check that no cars are passing before crossing. At a crosswalk, drivers will slow down if they see a pedestrian heading towards the crossing; they don't need to (and won't) at other places. Of course, if they see a pedestrian in the middle of the road, they are not allowed to hit them, just like they're not allowed to hit a car.
You can go to jail if you don't take due care to avoid hitting a pedestrian, or even an animal. The right of way of the person being hit is irrelevant. But sure, if you, pedestrian, cause an accident due to your failure to respect right of way, you have also violated a traffic law, and you could be punished for it.
In practice, in a place like NYC, you're going to have to go to pretty extreme lengths for this to apply. Maybe if you dart into traffic maliciously, and a car swerves to avoid you and hits something? I dunno. It's hard to imagine a scenario.
That law requires them to exercise due care if a pedestrian is already on the road. This doesn't mean in any way that they have to slow down if they think the pedestrian might cross the road, as long as they are not endangering them. Even if the pedestrian is already on the road but far away, say on the first lane while the driver is on the third lane, the driver doesn't need to slow down.
Conversely, when a pedestrian is on a crosswalk and thus has right of way, the car needs to slow down even if the pedestrian is relatively far on a different lane.
> You can go to jail if you don't take due care to avoid hitting a pedestrian, or even an animal.
Please explain how this is different from a car that is blocking your way. Would you not be liable for jail if you intentionally hit a car idling on your lane just because it wasn't allowed to be there?
From the article ”It also allows for crossing against traffic signals and specifically states that doing so is no longer a violation of the city’s administrative code.”
Did you read the article? Pedestrians can always cross but they then don't have the right of way and have to yield to traffic. Basically everyone can keep doing what they've been doing all along but police can no longer arrest them for it through selective enforcement.
>Did you read the article? Pedestrians can always cross but they then don't have the right of way and have to yield to traffic. Basically everyone can keep doing what they've been doing all along but police can no longer arrest them for it through selective enforcement.
As a lifelong New Yorker, I can tell you that arrest is never an option for any violation of the city's administrative code. Rather it's a fine.
And as you alluded to, black and brown people were the vast majority of those fined under the jaywalking regulation.
As a cis white guy, I didn't even know that jaywalking was 'illegal' in NYC until folks started talking about 'legalizing' it a few years ago.
As I mentioned, I've lived here pretty much all my life and have 'jaywalked' in front of police hundreds if not thousands of times and none have ever even looked at me funny.
So yes, this is a very good thing. Just one very, very small step on the road to 'a more perfect union', IMHO.
Yeah, I guess I used "arrest" in the figurative sense (i.e. stopping and fining), not necessarily for taking someone into police custody. This might be the language barrier, as other replies to your comment also seem to misue the term in that sense.
The alternative is having traffic laws for pedestrians and enforcing them and fining violators so they don't just walk wherever they please with zero consequences.
Why is it they get to disrupt traffic with total impunity and shift all the liability to the vehicles? That makes no sense whatsoever.
It’s a race to create an AI good enough to solve the e-waste problem before the e-waste problem becomes such a large problem that it prevents AI advancement.
So far, I haven't seen any sign that LLM/GenAI could be used to solve e-waste. It's definitely an impressive technology, but seems to be much suited at generating porn than at solving global issues.
It's a race to ignore all this, calling it "woke snowflake worries lol", and enjoying the short term economical benefits of AI making the shareholders happy. And I'm not even sarcastic.
