For instance, each CHAMP node is a single CL vector; the header occupies the first few slots rather than being a separate allocated ooject.

Good suggestion, thanks.

A change in the API of a dependency should be detected immediately and handled silently.

Reliance on unspecified behavior shouldn't happen in the first place; the client's verification would fail.

Detecting breakage caused by library changes should be where verification really shines; when you get the update, you try to re-run your verification, and if that fails, it tells you what the problem is.

As for interconnected systems, again, that's pretty much the whole point. Obviously, achieving this dream will require formalizing pretty much everything, which is well beyond our capabilities now. But eventually, with advances in AI, I think it will be possible. It will take something fundamentally better than today's LLMs, though.

The model doesn't "genuinely believe" anything.

All George is saying is that that money should be going to the city (or other controlling locality) instead of the previous owner, because it's the city that created the value in the first place.

This is the point I would emphasize. A kernel module that parses configuration files must defend itself against a failed parse.

Snowden knows he is being watched closely. I suppose that is itself a reason to take what he says with a grain of salt, but I certainly don't take his silence on the Ukraine war as evidence of assent.

Also, I just read that Harris has money pouring in. The donors may effectively decide this before anyone else can get traction.

Security is not a feature that can be layered on. It has to be built in. We now have an entire industry dedicated to trying to layer security onto Windows -- but it still doesn't work.

Alternatively, imagine one car is parked (in neutral, with its brake off) and the other car hits it at 100. The center of mass of the two cars is moving at 50 both before and after the collision (conservation of momentum); after it, the cars will be moving at that average speed. The impact will again be equivalent to the original scenario.

The original claim probably results from a conflation of these two scenarios.

ETA: So what student drivers should be told is that hitting another car head-on is like hitting a brick wall at the same speed. For this to be exactly true, the momenta (mass * velocity) of the two vehicles have to be equal and opposite, but to communicate the general idea, I don't think we have to go into that.