What you can't do is build something statically with musl and then reliably dlopen shared libraries built with glibc.

> In the lawsuit, filed on July 31, New York seeks a temporary restraining order prohibiting KalshiEX, LLC from offering all event contracts nationwide and more than $36 billion in damages.

I'd love to see another state push for a state-specific restriction and see how that plays out.

Issuer I'm seeing is Sectigo Public Server Authentication CA OV R36.

Avast is nominally an AV/VPN company; are you running their tooling on your machine?

I've got no love for Kalshi, but "orders Kalshi to continue operate in New York" doesn't seem to be present anywhere in the actual release.

The article presents the sequence of events as:

1. The State of NY files a lawsuit against Kalshi under the theory that it can be regulated by state gambling laws.

2. The State of NY files for a temporary restraining order requiring Kalshi to halt trading nationally, not just in NY.

3. Kalshi reaches out to the CFTC to claim that NY doesn't have the authority to regulate interstate commerce.

4. The CFTC agrees and uses their authority to override the TRO.

That seems pretty aligned with how interstate commerce is regulated and managed in the US.

Can you cite that? I see them specifically welcoming AI security reports; I don't see any evidence that other AI submissions are not welcome.

Cards on the table, I am an optimist. But this feels pretty realistic: it's basically a corollary to the idea that public outrage about bad policies, bad practices, or bad tooling is problematic for these government entities. They want to avoid it. There's plenty of examples of this, even honing to just the US. Increasingly there's even examples of this specifically in the US, for police departments, for usage of Flock.

If government entities get good PR for rolling out strong policies, practices, and tooling for the data they have, and that makes more of them very keen to do so... mission accomplished?

The department in this article appears to be doing just that:

> Every search run through the Flock Safety platform is automatically logged — who ran it, when, and the reason they gave for doing it. SPD said they also have other safeguards in place, including mandatory training, role-based access controls and supervisory oversight.

I'm in favor of pushing for police departments (and really any governmental body with access to any kind of data) to have regulations around access to that data, access controls to restrict illegitimate access, and monitoring to detect improper access by people who do have legitimate access but don't follow the proper regulations.

I think you're correct that we don't tend to see the instances where improper usage occurs, tautologically because those entities aren't doing their homework on the above.