Arthur Besse
cultural reviewer and dabbler in stylistic premonitions
- 37 Posts
- 56 Comments
Arthur Besse@lemmy.mlto
Technology@lemmy.ml•Peter Thiel’s Dialog conference in Ireland shut down by grassroots actionEnglish
5·22 days agocross-posting my comment from another thread:
Nice, 🍻 to the people who made this happen.
I couldn’t make it through that interview with the former Google employee, though. A few minor fact checks from before I stopped reading:
I don’t know if you know this, Mike, but the word “boycott” was actually coined in Ireland. Boycott was an individual, an Irish person, and that person actually got boycotted.
Almost correct, except the part about Charles Boycott being an Irish person. (He was unsurprisingly actually English.)
I worked for Google. I worked for Google at a time when… I don’t think they were as evil as they are now. And I worked for Google at a time when they did not use their technology for warfare or for governments. I really enjoyed my time at Google. And I am personally heartbroken at the path that they have taken, and I fully support the boycott of Google in order to support the Palestinian people.
I wonder when it was that this person thinks Google “did not use their technology for warfare or for governments”. I guess they probably think Google only turned evil in 2018, when Project Maven started getting more press? Anyway, such a time never existed; the project which became Google was created by and for US intelligence. https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e
And it’s sickening to think that an organization like Anthropic can come in here, be given tax breaks, being given great publicity, and yet go on to commit the murder of over 160 schoolgirls in Minab, in Iran, but the Irish government says, “Welcome, Anthropic.”
Fuck Anthropic for (among other things) their Department of War contracts, but them taking the blame for the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School massacre is some bullshit: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2026/mar/26/ai-got-the-blame-for-the-iran-school-bombing-the-truth-is-far-more-worrying
Arthur Besse@lemmy.mlMto
Linux@lemmy.ml•Rust Coreutils cp Ended Up Breaking Ubuntu Image Builds With Latest IncompatibilityEnglish
4·1 month agoBut why rewrite programs that existed for decades and have proven their stability and safety? Rewriting them to Rust won’t make them safer, it will just introduce the kind of issues original versions have got fixed long ago.
Of course rewriting them will introduce some new issues, but it will also eliminate classes of bugs from which there are definitely still a great many in old “stable” C code (bugs which are now being discovered and will presumably continue to be discovered at a much faster pace due to LLMs).
The whole project is about abolishing GPL. And Rust is just an excuse.
I don’t think it is just an excuse; I believe that improving security is also a goal… but removing GPL code is clearly also part of their motivation :(
Arthur Besse@lemmy.mlMto
Linux@lemmy.ml•Rust Coreutils cp Ended Up Breaking Ubuntu Image Builds With Latest IncompatibilityEnglish
2·1 month agoNo, it is not a good time. A project like Ubuntu should now be in freeze as they had about 3 months before release

This bug was reported (and resolved by rolling back to the GNU coreutils version of
cp) on June 30, a little over 15 weeks prior to the scheduled release date.Which distros have a feature freeze that far in advance?
Ubuntu hasn’t even scheduled theirs for this release yet; if you edit that url to look at previous releases’ schedules you can see their feature freeze and debian import freezes are typically about 2 months prior to release. (See here for descriptions of all of the different types of freezes…)
Arthur Besse@lemmy.mlMto
Linux@lemmy.ml•Rust Coreutils cp Ended Up Breaking Ubuntu Image Builds With Latest IncompatibilityEnglish
67·1 month agoWhat an absolute shitshow
I’d say the month of June is actually a good time to be breaking and fixing things in a release that is due to come out in (checks notes) October.
Arthur Besse@lemmy.mlto
Technology@lemmy.ml•[Video] Jeff Bezos Blue Origin rocket test launch results in massive explosion
2·3 months agoA Rocket To Nowhere is an entertaining blog post which covers the design compromises you’re talking about:
spoiler
[735 of the 4.1k words of the above-linked blog post]
By the time Shuttle development began, it was clear that the original vision of a Shuttle as part of a larger space transportation system was far too costly and ambitious to receive Congressional support. So NASA concentrated on building only the first component of its vision, a reusable manned spacecraft that could reach low earth orbit. Since NASA assumed it would be able to fly Shuttle missions with a turnaround time as low as two weeks, this left the vexing question of what to do with all that spare launch capacity. The tiny commercial launch market was in no shape to supply such a wealth of satellites, so NASA turned to the one agency that had an abundance of things requiring shooting into space - the Air Force - and asked it to abandon its unmanned rocket programs, instead committing all future satellite launches to the Shuttle.
The Air Force was only too happy to agree, but at a crippling price. What the Air Force wanted to launch was spy satellites - lots of them, bulky telescopes with heavy mirrors, the bigger the better - and it wanted to launch them in an orbit over the Earth’s poles, so they could snoop over the maximum amount of Red territory. This meant NASA had to go back to the drawing board, since polar orbits would require a heavier orbiter than the Shuttle design had anticipated, which in turn meant using a bigger rocket at launch, and dissipating more heat during re-entry.
Moreover, there was no way to launch a polar mission safely from Kennedy Space Center — it would mean overflying either heavily populated areas in the Carolinas or risking capture of a fuel tank by the wily Cubans. So the Air Force also demanded, and got, billions in funding to build a new Shuttle launch facility at Vandenberg Air Force base in California. And because some of the Air Force’s military missions involved capturing a Soviet satellite on the sly and landing after one orbit, the Air Force demanded that the Shuttle be capable of gliding over a thousand miles cross-range during re-entry, so that it could catch up with the rapidly eastbound Air Force base underneath it. This meant bigger wings, which in turn meant more weight, an even more powerful rocket, and again a more complicated heat shield.
Most of the really wrong design decisions in the Shuttle system — the side-mounted orbiter, solid rocket boosters, lack of air-breathing engines, no escape system, fragile heat protection — were the direct fallout of this design phase, when tight budgets and onerous Air Force requirements forced engineers to improvise solutions to problems that had as much to do to do with the mechanics of Congressional funding as the mechanics of flight. In a pattern that would recur repeatedly in the years to come, NASA managers decided that they were better off making spending cuts on initial design even if they resulted in much higher operating costs over the lifetime of the program.
To further cut costs, and keep the weight from growing prohibitive, the Shuttle became the first manned spacecraft to fly without any kind of crew escape system, relying on certain components (solid rockets, wing tiles, landing gear) to function with complete reliability. NASA also decided not to make the Shuttle capable of unmanned flight, so that the first test flight of the vehicle would have astronauts on board. This was a major departure for the traditionally conservative agency, which had relied on redundant systems wherever possible, and always tested unmanned prototypes of any new rocket. It showed how confident NASA had grown in its ability to correctly predict, simulate, and design for high reliability.
The final Shuttle design, incorporating all of the budgetary and Air Force design constraints, was impressive but not particularly useful. Very soon after the start of the program, it became clear that Shuttle launches would not be routine events, that it would cost a great deal of money to repair each orbiter after its trip to space, and that estimates of launch cost and frequency had been wildly optimistic. At the same time, the Air Force proved unable to get the Vandenberg base ready for use, negating much of the reason for the extensive Shuttle redesign. After the Challenger explosion, the Vandenberg base was quietly mothballed. Not once did the Shuttle fly a mission to polar orbit.
some kind of driver problem?
Arthur Besse@lemmy.mlto
Programmer Humor@programming.dev•Microslop official documentation on how to ground an AIEnglish
5·3 months agoabout their MDASH copilot model
that’s satire, right?

Arthur Besse@lemmy.mlMto
Linux@lemmy.ml•Fragnesia: New Linux Privilege Escalation ExploitEnglish
63·3 months ago
Arthur Besse@lemmy.mlMto
Linux@lemmy.ml•Dirty Frag: Universal Linux LPE - allows any unprivileged local user to gain root access on a vulnerable Linux system - no patch availableEnglish
2·3 months agothat kernel release (which most distros have still not shipped yet) fixes only one of the two vulnerabilities (CVE-2026-43284); afaik even upstream still doesn’t have a patch for the second one (CVE-2026-43500) at this time.
(for people relying on Linux privilege separation, here are mitigation instructions.)
amazing! it’s great to see that is still being maintained after so many years.
you could try renaming sideloading to “freedomloading” or maybe “freeloading”
freeloading is already a verb in english, and not the one you’re looking for
also it’s from the spammer’s “staging” instance, so the payload is a URL with a staging hostname which doesn’t even resolve 🙄






















strace cat