Restricting regex features to guarantee time complexity works, but it requires sacrificing potentially useful features like backtracking (or in the article's case, constraining oneself to fixed-upper-bound-length needles).
In a real-world deployment where you want to run any arbitrary regex in an idiot/malice-proof manner, the best solution is the same solution you'd use for running any other kind of untrusted code - sandbox it! A good regex API should limit its execution time and memory consumption and return a timeout error in case those limits are exceeded. Ideally, those parameters would be configurable at the API level. Unfortunately, the only regex libraries I know of that get this right are .NET's standard library Regex API and the third-party regex package in Python.
Windows' value is as a funnel to the Microsoft platform. Starving that funnel of attention might not have an immediate effect, but it's a slow death spiral for the company because it cannibalizes their long-term mind share. The 10-year-olds today who grow up using Chromebooks in school, Macbooks in college, and iPhones/Android phones in their daily lives, will end up investing in Google and Apple products as a working adult at home or at the office. The one remaining moat that Windows has over other operating systems is games and old software, but with Valve hard at work to get Steam games working on Linux, this last bastion of Microsoft's consumer presence is under attack as well.
> The 10-year-olds today who grow up using Chromebooks in school, Macbooks in college, and iPhones/Android phones in their daily lives, will end up investing in Google and Apple products as a working adult at home or at the office.
1. That's not how businesses work - the 10-year-old will be 28 when he becomes an IT manager, and their 40yo boss will say "LOL no, learn to use Active Directory, we're not switching the entire company to Chromebooks/MacBook Neos because you 'grew up with' them." They will then adapt and learn to use what the business has.
2. Even assuming charitably that our 10yo will be founding a company one day and making all purchasing decisions for themselves, it's worth pointing out that neither Google nor especially Apple has shown even slight interest in delivering "Enterprise" anything. Even MDM Apple farms out to third parties, likewise they have no realistic counterpart for Active Directory, nor business email or collaboration (at least Google has that though). A startup may be all-Mac. Eventually if it's successful though, it'll be too big to use 'consumer' tools only.
The MacBook Neo is a cute PC for a student or a grandma or indeed any casual user. But despite it giving Apple (for the first time in Apple's existence) a price point for an entire computer that's under the amount where you'd be embarrassed to propose adopting it for your whole fleet... the hardware is but one part of a larger ecosystem, and Apple has demonstrated that they have no interest into selling into "The Enterprise" except for tiny niches (relative to the whole PC market) such as "web and mobile" software engineers, video editors, VFX shops etc.
Their 40 yo boss will have never used anything other than a web browser (or a game) in their entire lives at that point. He will never have heard of AD. Windows is legacy at this point. Only the most old and obtuse businesses still use it and then only for Excel and maybe PowerPoint. Most of the staff today only uses a web browser. In 20 years, nobody will even know that AD existed except in some museum in SJ.
In the medium sized public sector organisation I do some work in (not tech), most of the business type systems we use are reached via Chrome and are subscription based. I can log into them all using Linux with Chrome installed from home and there is no difference compared to using an organisation PC in their premises. Yes, I am logging in via Microsoft 365 but very few of the applications apart from email and calendar/Teams are used. The business type systems could well be running on Azure but I suspect not, at least for some of them.
Contrast that with a decade ago. All systems accessed via networked PCs using Windows native clients. I had to use RDP to a desktop to access anything from outside the network.
One day someone is going to realise that the organisation does not have to spend £££ replacing every PC just to keep running a Web browser.
Their 40 year old boss the will be younger than many of the 20 something, 30 something, 40 something entrepreneurs who already, now, at this moment (me included) would find the idea of moving to Active Directory and stocking the company with Wintel laptops equally farcical.
> A startup may be all-Mac. Eventually if it's successful though, it'll be too big to use 'consumer' tools only... likewise they have no realistic counterpart for Active Directory, nor business email or collaboration (at least Google has that though).
Between the two, they have those needs pretty much completely covered (also, Apple does have increasingly good support for MDM now). To me this reads more as a complaint that neither of them is trying to execute the same bundling/business model as Microsoft, or selling the same kind of security model as what makes sense for an old school IT shop that literally could never leave Microsoft products if it even wanted to.
Every single mobile device in "Enterprise" is using MDM provided and supported by those two companies for business users at multiple layers of the stack required to provide that functionality, they just don't make a business out of selling it directly as a Serious Enterprise Product to IT departments (the least important part of the stack, ie where a guy in a collared shirt with a web app takes a middle manager out for a steak dinner).
I set up MDM for the first time while standing in line for a flight at the airport, on my iphone and for my iphone. My company uses an enterprise IdP with a zero trust security model, which I saw executed firsthand by both Microsoft and Google for their own companies, neither of which made a fuss about giving me a mac device to work with. Somehow, it worked.
> it's worth pointing out that neither Google nor especially Apple has shown even slight interest in delivering "Enterprise" anything
You make a bold claim and then kind of refute it yourself. Apple Business and School Manager, Managed Apple Ids, Google-managed Enterprises with the admin console. The thing that Microsoft has is Entra Conditional Access and it is powerful, but also this thing is actively crumbling under its own complexity weight. From my experience the future of Enterprise solutions does not belong to Microsoft.
More specifically, it's because Meta views the lack of ownership of their own hardware platform as an existential threat. They see AR/VR as the next revolutionary platform, so they're betting the farm on being first movers in a mass-market AR/VR space that they anticipate to exist in the future.
Assuming AR/VR is actually going to be the next thing, how are they going to fight the lock-in due to Google and Apple ecosystem?
Being first isn't going to be enough if Google and Apple manage to release something soon enough and with a better integration with all their other devices
None of these are rocket-science problems, they're just standardization issues. You build a library with your generate_id/serialize_id/deserialize_id functions that work with a wrapper type, and tell your devs to use that library. UUID libraries are exactly that, except backed by an RFC.
Of course they're not rocket science. But, the question here is, "Why don't you use random 16 bytes instead of a UUIDv4?" It's not a question about rocket science. The answer is still, "Because UUIDv4 is still a better way to do it." The UUID standard solves the second and third tier problems and knock-on effects you don't think about until you've run a system for awhile, or until you start adding multiple information systems that need to interact with the same data.
But, using UUIDv4 shouldn't be rocket science, either. UUID support should be built in to a language intended for web applications, database applications, or business applications. That's why you're using Go or C# instead of C. And Go is somewhat focused on micro-service architectures. It's going to need to serialize and deserialize objects regularly.
> The long-term outcome is Iran’s domestic drone production gets decimated.
That is impossible without committing to boots on the ground.
> Of course not. You blow up the factories and inventory.
Where are the factories? Where are the stockpiles? If they don't show up on satellite imagery, how do you find them? Boots on the ground. If they're hidden underground or beneath a mountain, how do you blow them up? Boots on the ground.
> No one has ever effected regime change with just air power. America could absolutely achieve a war aim with air power alone once Hegseth gets around to defining it.
The reason he hasn't gotten around to defining a war aim is that there is no legitimate war aim. Netanyahu wanted to blow shit up and the Pentagon foolishly followed along instead of telling him "you're on your own".
> That is impossible without committing to boots on the ground
Why?
> Where are the factories? Where are the stockpiles? If they don't show up on satellite imagery, how do you find them? Boots on the ground
Same way we found Khamenei. Slowly attriting that production base (together with Iran’s economy) is something America can do from afar for a while. Bonus points if Iran’s neighbours get pissed off enough to start seizing buffer territory with their own boots.
> there is no legitimate war aim
Of course there is. It’s regime change. We just haven’t committed the resources to accomplishing it.
> The network file system to host is usually pretty slow no? That was my impression.
NFS doesn't have to be slow. If you avoid traversing the TCP/IP stack, performance is fine. Linux guests can use vsock to communicate with the hypervisor directly, and macOS hosts can use the Virtualization framework to map a guest vsock to a host UNIX socket.
that solves the pollution problem, but it doesn't pin cache lines. it also doesn't cover the case that ppc does where you want to assert a line is valid without actually fetching.
They absolutely save. Just not in their own currency - they'll instead rush to cash out for gold, USD, prime real estate (if they're rich), or some other less volatile store of value, before their currency gets devalued even further.
Gold and USD is easily stolen, especially if stored in a bank. Prime real estate will find a new owner (e.g. the case I saw myself -- surprise, turns out the seller, even if's the government/municipality itself, did not have rights to sell you the land 15 years ago, good bye).
I suspect that highway miles heavily skew this statistic. There's naturally far fewer pedestrians on highways (lower numerator), people travel longer distances on highways (higher denominator), and Waymo vehicles didn't drive on highways until recently. If you look only at non-highway miles, you'll get a much more accurate comparison.
Then you or Waymo can meet the burden of proof and present that more precise and better information. There is little reason to assume against safety at this point in time except as a intellectual exercise for how more accurate information could be found.
Until then, it is only prudent to defer snap judgements, but increase caution, insist on rigor and transparency, and demand more accurate information.
It's not the technology that's the problem, it's the consolidation of entities that control the technology. Low-cost mobility is vital to a healthy economy. Anything that could potentially monopolize transportation should be heavily scrutinized, or else we end up repeating the history of the railroad monopoly era, but with cars.
I don’t see how “robotaxi” implies “monopoly” at all. The road network is already there. There’s lots of money to be made. The idea that only Waymo will ever be able to figure this out seems rather far-fetched to me.
I believe this is somewhat the point of the article. For example, consider the VC subsidizing of Uber in the early days. That was used as a means of fighting competition because Uber could price more competitively than other potential market entrants. I think the same idea applies with Waymo and Tesla. They’re incumbents in the market with significant war chests to have preferential pricing power, which could allow them to push out competition. From here, even if there’s lots of money to be made, people are generally fickle with these types of apps, and it’s not a huge leap to think they’d take the best deal, even if it means that the competition slowly drains out of the market.
In a real-world deployment where you want to run any arbitrary regex in an idiot/malice-proof manner, the best solution is the same solution you'd use for running any other kind of untrusted code - sandbox it! A good regex API should limit its execution time and memory consumption and return a timeout error in case those limits are exceeded. Ideally, those parameters would be configurable at the API level. Unfortunately, the only regex libraries I know of that get this right are .NET's standard library Regex API and the third-party regex package in Python.
reply