Mikko <[email protected]> wrote in news:10q5hih$3jgkv$[email protected]:
On 26/03/2026 02:49, dart200 wrote:
On 3/25/26 9:13 AM, MummyChunk wrote:
It is reported that the number of attacks with malware has increased
by 7.7 times from last year - this explosive growth is attributed to
the active use of new AI (Neural Net) technologies by criminals.
Skynet awaits...
if only we could prove our programs correct ...
We could if customers would require.
Those who are developers have that responsibility.
It is also not enough to be correct. It must fully address the need.
AI can be another tool to help solve needs. It is not the only tool. Never forget the end user and the possible consequences of a failure. That is the developer's responsibility.
[Follow-up set to comp.(in.)theory.]
On 27/03/2026 11:05, David LaRue wrote:
Mikko <[email protected]> wrote in news:10q5hih$3jgkv$[email protected]:
On 26/03/2026 02:49, dart200 wrote:
On 3/25/26 9:13 AM, MummyChunk wrote:
It is reported that the number of attacks with malware has increased >>>>> by 7.7 times from last year - this explosive growth is attributed to >>>>> the active use of new AI (Neural Net) technologies by criminals.
Skynet awaits...
if only we could prove our programs correct ...
We could if customers would require.
Those who are developers have that responsibility.
We have a budget, not just responsibilities, plus usually work under
a boss who tells what shall be done and what shall be not... more below.
It is also not enough to be correct. It must fully address the need.
AI can be another tool to help solve needs. It is not the only tool.
Never
forget the end user and the possible consequences of a failure. That
is the
developer's responsibility.
What of pile of the usual nonsense.
It is reported that with AI it's scamming and phishing that have become
way more effective, nothing to do with the correctness of programs.
As for the correctness of programs, it is the responsibility of
the *producing company* that there are no bugs, the single developers
themselves have lost any control of anything and usually just work
under tons of technical debt and absurd plans to achieve not even
their managers can tell anymore: so get your head out of your ass
for a change and stop bashing "the developers", they aren't faultless
but are the very last problem with software at the moment, in fact
the vast majority is simply stuck at junior level at those conditions
(that they realise it or not, and that they have 2 or 15 years
of experience, the vastest majority is simply utterly incompetent
nowadays, and it's not their fault but of an entire system that has
been cultivating devastation and ignorance for decades and more
by now... but, before you start laughing, be aware that the computer scientists are by far even more ignorant, do not have a clue what
what "software" even means and don't even know that they don't know,
indeed always just pontificating like stupid cunts and nothing else,
totally oblivious of anything).
Last but not least, it's true that every bug is a security hole,
it's also true my putative friends that shipping tendentially bugless software is possible and I have been doing it everyday for 40+ years:
OTOH, resisting ever evolving forms of malicious attack is the job of
the software and network security expert, ever heard about those?
Hope that helps,
Julio
On 3/30/26 11:17 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
[Follow-up set to comp.(in.)theory.]
On 27/03/2026 11:05, David LaRue wrote:
Mikko <[email protected]> wrote in news:10q5hih$3jgkv$2@dont-
email.me:
On 26/03/2026 02:49, dart200 wrote:
On 3/25/26 9:13 AM, MummyChunk wrote:
It is reported that the number of attacks with malware has increased >>>>>> by 7.7 times from last year - this explosive growth is attributed to >>>>>> the active use of new AI (Neural Net) technologies by criminals.
Skynet awaits...
if only we could prove our programs correct ...
We could if customers would require.
Those who are developers have that responsibility.
We have a budget, not just responsibilities, plus usually work under
a boss who tells what shall be done and what shall be not... more below.
It is also not enough to be correct. It must fully address the need.
AI can be another tool to help solve needs. It is not the only tool.
Never
forget the end user and the possible consequences of a failure. That
is the
developer's responsibility.
What of pile of the usual nonsense.
It is reported that with AI it's scamming and phishing that have become
way more effective, nothing to do with the correctness of programs.
As for the correctness of programs, it is the responsibility of
the *producing company* that there are no bugs, the single developers
they clearly aren't capable of doing that,
and the academics all have their heads stuck up their assholes in what
their incessantly dogmatic negligence has created
themselves have lost any control of anything and usually just work
under tons of technical debt and absurd plans to achieve not even
their managers can tell anymore: so get your head out of your ass
for a change and stop bashing "the developers", they aren't faultless
but are the very last problem with software at the moment, in fact
the vast majority is simply stuck at junior level at those conditions
(that they realise it or not, and that they have 2 or 15 years
of experience, the vastest majority is simply utterly incompetent
nowadays, and it's not their fault but of an entire system that has
been cultivating devastation and ignorance for decades and more
by now... but, before you start laughing, be aware that the computer
scientists are by far even more ignorant, do not have a clue what
what "software" even means and don't even know that they don't know,
indeed always just pontificating like stupid cunts and nothing else,
totally oblivious of anything).
Last but not least, it's true that every bug is a security hole,
it's also true my putative friends that shipping tendentially bugless
software is possible and I have been doing it everyday for 40+ years:
OTOH, resisting ever evolving forms of malicious attack is the job of
the software and network security expert, ever heard about those?
Hope that helps,
Julio
On 3/30/26 2:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/30/26 11:17 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
[Follow-up set to comp.(in.)theory.]
On 27/03/2026 11:05, David LaRue wrote:
Mikko <[email protected]> wrote in news:10q5hih$3jgkv$2@dont-
email.me:
On 26/03/2026 02:49, dart200 wrote:
On 3/25/26 9:13 AM, MummyChunk wrote:
It is reported that the number of attacks with malware has increased >>>>>>> by 7.7 times from last year - this explosive growth is attributed to >>>>>>> the active use of new AI (Neural Net) technologies by criminals. >>>>>>>
Skynet awaits...
if only we could prove our programs correct ...
We could if customers would require.
Those who are developers have that responsibility.
We have a budget, not just responsibilities, plus usually work under
a boss who tells what shall be done and what shall be not... more below. >>>
It is also not enough to be correct. It must fully address the need. >>>>
AI can be another tool to help solve needs. It is not the only
tool. Never
forget the end user and the possible consequences of a failure.
That is the
developer's responsibility.
What of pile of the usual nonsense.
It is reported that with AI it's scamming and phishing that have become
way more effective, nothing to do with the correctness of programs.
As for the correctness of programs, it is the responsibility of
the *producing company* that there are no bugs, the single developers
they clearly aren't capable of doing that,
Sure they are, IF there is a good reason to do so, one that makes
financial sense to do so.
THe fact that the market is willing to accept that programs may have
bugs in order to get program at a reasonable cost doesn't mean that you can't create programs that are provably correct.
The biggest issue with that is you first need to write specifications
that provably match the needs.
and the academics all have their heads stuck up their assholes in what
their incessantly dogmatic negligence has created
No, you are just showing your utter ignorance by taking your examples
from the ignorant.
Maybe you haven't noticed all the work done in the academic circles
about what CAN be proven to be correct.
Of course the biggest problem with that work is the effort to do this
goes beyond what the market wants to pay for most programs.
themselves have lost any control of anything and usually just work
under tons of technical debt and absurd plans to achieve not even
their managers can tell anymore: so get your head out of your ass
for a change and stop bashing "the developers", they aren't faultless
but are the very last problem with software at the moment, in fact
the vast majority is simply stuck at junior level at those conditions
(that they realise it or not, and that they have 2 or 15 years
of experience, the vastest majority is simply utterly incompetent
nowadays, and it's not their fault but of an entire system that has
been cultivating devastation and ignorance for decades and more
by now... but, before you start laughing, be aware that the computer
scientists are by far even more ignorant, do not have a clue what
what "software" even means and don't even know that they don't know,
indeed always just pontificating like stupid cunts and nothing else,
totally oblivious of anything).
Last but not least, it's true that every bug is a security hole,
it's also true my putative friends that shipping tendentially bugless
software is possible and I have been doing it everyday for 40+ years:
OTOH, resisting ever evolving forms of malicious attack is the job of
the software and network security expert, ever heard about those?
Hope that helps,
Julio
On 3/30/26 3:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/30/26 2:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/30/26 11:17 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
[Follow-up set to comp.(in.)theory.]
On 27/03/2026 11:05, David LaRue wrote:
Mikko <[email protected]> wrote in news:10q5hih$3jgkv$2@dont-
email.me:
On 26/03/2026 02:49, dart200 wrote:
On 3/25/26 9:13 AM, MummyChunk wrote:
It is reported that the number of attacks with malware has
increased
by 7.7 times from last year - this explosive growth is
attributed to
the active use of new AI (Neural Net) technologies by criminals. >>>>>>>>
Skynet awaits...
if only we could prove our programs correct ...
We could if customers would require.
Those who are developers have that responsibility.
We have a budget, not just responsibilities, plus usually work under
a boss who tells what shall be done and what shall be not... more
below.
It is also not enough to be correct. It must fully address the need. >>>>>
AI can be another tool to help solve needs. It is not the only
tool. Never
forget the end user and the possible consequences of a failure.
That is the
developer's responsibility.
What of pile of the usual nonsense.
It is reported that with AI it's scamming and phishing that have become >>>> way more effective, nothing to do with the correctness of programs.
As for the correctness of programs, it is the responsibility of
the *producing company* that there are no bugs, the single developers
they clearly aren't capable of doing that,
Sure they are, IF there is a good reason to do so, one that makes
financial sense to do so.
econobabble nonsense, ofc it makes sense to have basic computing infrastructure that ensures correctness in whatever we deploy
THe fact that the market is willing to accept that programs may have
bugs in order to get program at a reasonable cost doesn't mean that
you can't create programs that are provably correct.
we dev overall many orders of magnitude more code than is otherwise necessary to accomplish what we're trying to do with computing systems,
any talk of economic responsibility is _entirely_ detached from the
reality of professional coding, which is that it is _entirely_
economically retarded
The biggest issue with that is you first need to write specifications
that provably match the needs.
and the academics all have their heads stuck up their assholes in
what their incessantly dogmatic negligence has created
No, you are just showing your utter ignorance by taking your examples
from the ignorant.
Maybe you haven't noticed all the work done in the academic circles
about what CAN be proven to be correct.
i just notice how little has percolated into real world coding
Of course the biggest problem with that work is the effort to do this
goes beyond what the market wants to pay for most programs.
muh "markets" aren't rational numbnuts
themselves have lost any control of anything and usually just work
under tons of technical debt and absurd plans to achieve not even
their managers can tell anymore: so get your head out of your ass
for a change and stop bashing "the developers", they aren't faultless
but are the very last problem with software at the moment, in fact
the vast majority is simply stuck at junior level at those conditions
(that they realise it or not, and that they have 2 or 15 years
of experience, the vastest majority is simply utterly incompetent
nowadays, and it's not their fault but of an entire system that has
been cultivating devastation and ignorance for decades and more
by now... but, before you start laughing, be aware that the computer
scientists are by far even more ignorant, do not have a clue what
what "software" even means and don't even know that they don't know,
indeed always just pontificating like stupid cunts and nothing else,
totally oblivious of anything).
Last but not least, it's true that every bug is a security hole,
it's also true my putative friends that shipping tendentially bugless
software is possible and I have been doing it everyday for 40+ years:
OTOH, resisting ever evolving forms of malicious attack is the job of
the software and network security expert, ever heard about those?
Hope that helps,
Julio
On 3/30/26 9:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/30/26 3:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/30/26 2:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/30/26 11:17 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
[Follow-up set to comp.(in.)theory.]they clearly aren't capable of doing that,
On 27/03/2026 11:05, David LaRue wrote:
Mikko <[email protected]> wrote in news:10q5hih$3jgkv$2@dont-
email.me:
On 26/03/2026 02:49, dart200 wrote:
On 3/25/26 9:13 AM, MummyChunk wrote:
It is reported that the number of attacks with malware has
increased
by 7.7 times from last year - this explosive growth is
attributed to
the active use of new AI (Neural Net) technologies by criminals. >>>>>>>>>
Skynet awaits...
if only we could prove our programs correct ...
We could if customers would require.
Those who are developers have that responsibility.
We have a budget, not just responsibilities, plus usually work under >>>>> a boss who tells what shall be done and what shall be not... more
below.
It is also not enough to be correct. It must fully address the need. >>>>>>
AI can be another tool to help solve needs. It is not the only
tool. Never
forget the end user and the possible consequences of a failure.
That is the
developer's responsibility.
What of pile of the usual nonsense.
It is reported that with AI it's scamming and phishing that have
become
way more effective, nothing to do with the correctness of programs.
As for the correctness of programs, it is the responsibility of
the *producing company* that there are no bugs, the single developers >>>>
Sure they are, IF there is a good reason to do so, one that makes
financial sense to do so.
econobabble nonsense, ofc it makes sense to have basic computing
infrastructure that ensures correctness in whatever we deploy
Are you going to pay for it?
I guess you don't understand economics either.
THe fact that the market is willing to accept that programs may have
bugs in order to get program at a reasonable cost doesn't mean that
you can't create programs that are provably correct.
we dev overall many orders of magnitude more code than is otherwise
necessary to accomplish what we're trying to do with computing systems,
So, what software do you think was paid to be developed that didn't have
a need that someone thought existed?
any talk of economic responsibility is _entirely_ detached from the
reality of professional coding, which is that it is _entirely_
economically retarded
I guess you aren't a real programmer either than, maybe just a hack.
The biggest issue with that is you first need to write specifications
that provably match the needs.
and the academics all have their heads stuck up their assholes in
what their incessantly dogmatic negligence has created
No, you are just showing your utter ignorance by taking your examples
from the ignorant.
Maybe you haven't noticed all the work done in the academic circles
about what CAN be proven to be correct.
i just notice how little has percolated into real world coding
Because it doesn't make economic sense.
As I have said, most real world tasks don't actually NEED that level of proof.
Of course the biggest problem with that work is the effort to do this
goes beyond what the market wants to pay for most programs.
muh "markets" aren't rational numbnuts
But they are what drives things.
Again, are YOU going to do the funding to make what you want to happen?
Or, are you apt to make as big of a mess as you are showing in your
analysis of computation theory.
themselves have lost any control of anything and usually just work
under tons of technical debt and absurd plans to achieve not even
their managers can tell anymore: so get your head out of your ass
for a change and stop bashing "the developers", they aren't faultless >>>>> but are the very last problem with software at the moment, in fact
the vast majority is simply stuck at junior level at those conditions >>>>> (that they realise it or not, and that they have 2 or 15 years
of experience, the vastest majority is simply utterly incompetent
nowadays, and it's not their fault but of an entire system that has
been cultivating devastation and ignorance for decades and more
by now... but, before you start laughing, be aware that the computer >>>>> scientists are by far even more ignorant, do not have a clue what
what "software" even means and don't even know that they don't know, >>>>> indeed always just pontificating like stupid cunts and nothing else, >>>>> totally oblivious of anything).
Last but not least, it's true that every bug is a security hole,
it's also true my putative friends that shipping tendentially bugless >>>>> software is possible and I have been doing it everyday for 40+ years: >>>>> OTOH, resisting ever evolving forms of malicious attack is the job of >>>>> the software and network security expert, ever heard about those?
Hope that helps,
Julio
On 3/30/26 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/30/26 9:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/30/26 3:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/30/26 2:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/30/26 11:17 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
[Follow-up set to comp.(in.)theory.]they clearly aren't capable of doing that,
On 27/03/2026 11:05, David LaRue wrote:
Mikko <[email protected]> wrote in news:10q5hih$3jgkv$2@dont- >>>>>>> email.me:
On 26/03/2026 02:49, dart200 wrote:
On 3/25/26 9:13 AM, MummyChunk wrote:
It is reported that the number of attacks with malware has >>>>>>>>>> increased
by 7.7 times from last year - this explosive growth is
attributed to
the active use of new AI (Neural Net) technologies by criminals. >>>>>>>>>>
Skynet awaits...
if only we could prove our programs correct ...
We could if customers would require.
Those who are developers have that responsibility.
We have a budget, not just responsibilities, plus usually work under >>>>>> a boss who tells what shall be done and what shall be not... more >>>>>> below.
It is also not enough to be correct. It must fully address the >>>>>>> need.
AI can be another tool to help solve needs. It is not the only >>>>>>> tool. Never
forget the end user and the possible consequences of a failure. >>>>>>> That is the
developer's responsibility.
What of pile of the usual nonsense.
It is reported that with AI it's scamming and phishing that have
become
way more effective, nothing to do with the correctness of programs. >>>>>>
As for the correctness of programs, it is the responsibility of
the *producing company* that there are no bugs, the single developers >>>>>
Sure they are, IF there is a good reason to do so, one that makes
financial sense to do so.
econobabble nonsense, ofc it makes sense to have basic computing
infrastructure that ensures correctness in whatever we deploy
Are you going to pay for it?
who paid for all the theory backing this? who paid for all open source infrastructure everything is built on??
I guess you don't understand economics either.
we pay for 2-3 orders of magnitude more code that we need within single orgs, and 4-5 across the entirety of society at least ...
redirecting even a fraction of that effort would be a complete economic
boom for the entire species if ever retarded chucklefucks like urself
could figure it the fuck out
THe fact that the market is willing to accept that programs may have
bugs in order to get program at a reasonable cost doesn't mean that
you can't create programs that are provably correct.
we dev overall many orders of magnitude more code than is otherwise
necessary to accomplish what we're trying to do with computing systems,
So, what software do you think was paid to be developed that didn't
have a need that someone thought existed?
any talk of economic responsibility is _entirely_ detached from the
reality of professional coding, which is that it is _entirely_
economically retarded
I guess you aren't a real programmer either than, maybe just a hack.
yeah alan kay isn't a real programmer either i suppose:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubaX1Smg6pY
The biggest issue with that is you first need to write
specifications that provably match the needs.
and the academics all have their heads stuck up their assholes in
what their incessantly dogmatic negligence has created
No, you are just showing your utter ignorance by taking your
examples from the ignorant.
Maybe you haven't noticed all the work done in the academic circles
about what CAN be proven to be correct.
i just notice how little has percolated into real world coding
Because it doesn't make economic sense.
As I have said, most real world tasks don't actually NEED that level
of proof.
yeah instead the real world "NEEDS" and ungodly mess of 4-5 orders of magnitude more code the necessary to accomplish anything at any amount
of scale...
goddamn u fucking subrational dope
Of course the biggest problem with that work is the effort to do
this goes beyond what the market wants to pay for most programs.
muh "markets" aren't rational numbnuts
But they are what drives things.
lol at least ur admitting muh "market" _is not_ rational, so whatever ur arguing as "sense" doesn't actually make sense,
ofc realizing that would take have principles, and as far as i call ...
all u stand up for is pretending the status quo is reasonable
Again, are YOU going to do the funding to make what you want to happen?
fuck capitalist morons gaslighting people without money to spare
Or, are you apt to make as big of a mess as you are showing in your
analysis of computation theory.
themselves have lost any control of anything and usually just work >>>>>> under tons of technical debt and absurd plans to achieve not even
their managers can tell anymore: so get your head out of your ass
for a change and stop bashing "the developers", they aren't faultless >>>>>> but are the very last problem with software at the moment, in fact >>>>>> the vast majority is simply stuck at junior level at those conditions >>>>>> (that they realise it or not, and that they have 2 or 15 years
of experience, the vastest majority is simply utterly incompetent
nowadays, and it's not their fault but of an entire system that has >>>>>> been cultivating devastation and ignorance for decades and more
by now... but, before you start laughing, be aware that the computer >>>>>> scientists are by far even more ignorant, do not have a clue what
what "software" even means and don't even know that they don't know, >>>>>> indeed always just pontificating like stupid cunts and nothing else, >>>>>> totally oblivious of anything).
Last but not least, it's true that every bug is a security hole,
it's also true my putative friends that shipping tendentially bugless >>>>>> software is possible and I have been doing it everyday for 40+ years: >>>>>> OTOH, resisting ever evolving forms of malicious attack is the job of >>>>>> the software and network security expert, ever heard about those?
Hope that helps,
Julio
... it's true that every bug is a security hole,
On 3/25/26 8:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/25/26 9:13 AM, MummyChunk wrote:
It is reported that the number of attacks with malware has increased
by 7.7 times from last year - this explosive growth is attributed to
the active use of new AI (Neural Net) technologies by criminals.
Skynet awaits...
if only we could prove our programs correct ...
But we CAN, just not every correct program.
On 26/03/2026 01:14, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/25/26 8:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/25/26 9:13 AM, MummyChunk wrote:
It is reported that the number of attacks with malware has increased
by 7.7 times from last year - this explosive growth is attributed to
the active use of new AI (Neural Net) technologies by criminals.
Skynet awaits...
if only we could prove our programs correct ...
But we CAN, just not every correct program.
Homo Gubernator requires something much more than early 20th century
ideas of proofs and much more than late 20th century ideas of formal
methods. We need to study fixed-points of robust computing (both stable
and unstable).
On 3/30/26 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/30/26 9:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
econobabble nonsense, ofc it makes sense to have basic computing
infrastructure that ensures correctness in whatever we deploy
Are you going to pay for it?
who paid for all the theory backing this? who paid for all open source infrastructure everything is built on??
On 4/2/26 9:01 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:....
On 26/03/2026 01:14, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/25/26 8:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
if only we could prove our programs correct ...
But we CAN, just not every correct program.
Homo Gubernator requires something much more than early 20th century
ideas of proofs and much more than late 20th century ideas of formal
methods. We need to study fixed-points of robust computing (both stable
and unstable).
Then Homo Gubernator needs to work harder.
On 03/04/2026 02:06, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/2/26 9:01 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:....
On 26/03/2026 01:14, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/25/26 8:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
if only we could prove our programs correct ...
But we CAN, just not every correct program.
Homo Gubernator requires something much more than early 20th century
ideas of proofs and much more than late 20th century ideas of formal
methods. We need to study fixed-points of robust computing (both stable
and unstable).
Then Homo Gubernator needs to work harder.
Smarter, not harder. velocity takes you to a destination but I reckon
the destination is infinitely far away in a noneuclidean space so the direction component is the only thing that really counts.
Perhaps the space is weird enough that there's only one speed and the
right sequence of direction changes is needed.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,114 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 492508:38:27 |
| Calls: | 14,267 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 186,320 |
| D/L today: |
20,163 files (6,244M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,518,305 |