(I mean, this particular library seems to be one of those AI-generated ghost town projects that has stuff like a big fancy GOVERNANCE.md but no actual user or contributor community, but that's the strongest reason I've heard to use things like Tailwind.)

This is a nice ideal, but it doesn't actually exist in concrete terms as a design. It can never have flaws because the definition of it is just "rustc without all the flaws".

You can't do that with Rust because "Rust's type system" is literally just the vague concept of "a type system that is safe". The implementation of this ideal in rustc can have flaws, but Rust itself cannot, because Rust itself has no flaws by definition.

Rust cannot fail, it can only be failed.

To prevent cases where users can upload an excessive amount of data on March 31 that they then can't afford the April bill for, AWS should also maintain a "next month's balance" limit that gets handled in the same way.

It would take a bit more work to correctly handle things like ephemeral data and tiered storage classes, but it's not insurmountable.

You could apply the same kind of billing to most other long-lived resources, including VMs that run business-critical services.

But then Google changed the default voice assistant on Android to use Gemini. So instead of relying on hard-coded "if the user says this exact phrase, do the thing we said would happen" conditions, people now have to hope the model's smart enough to figure what "turn on my lights" means from first principles every single time.

It's still possible to back up an iPhone to a jailbroken computer, using roughly the same iTunes sync system that was available on iPods. For now.

> Status in 7.0.0: kernels without Landlock continue working without Linux sandboxing in the less secure pre-6.0.0 configuration; brew doctor reports missing protection as an advisory.

> No replacement opt-out; unavailable Landlock remains advisory.

With that being said, I can kind of see why "eliminate all traces of AI writing styles" wouldn't be a goal of the review/editing process. I've been out of the Apple ecosystem for a while, but I imagine Homebrew has enthusiastically adopted LLMs for a lot of tasks. If the public communications reflect that, then people who don't like LLMs can bounce immediately, rather than getting invested in the project and feeling betrayed later.

If you ask "did you build this using Codex or Claude", it removes most of the wiggle room. And it's worded pretty neutrally, so it will often get vibe-coders who aren't technically using either of those tools to say something like, "Actually, I've built a custom harness for DeepSeek..." instead of an outright denial.

Apps get to choose what permissions are needed to access their intents, so under Android's security model, really it's Chrome's fault (or whatever browser the user has installed) for exposing an intent that allows apps that don't have the INTERNET permission to exfoltrate data.

Similarly, apps are also allowed to collude to share data with each other if they want; that's how stuff like Google Play Services works.

> Note, due to the layer at which the Linux kernel is in a system, almost any bug might be exploitable to compromise the security of the kernel, but the possibility of exploitation is often not evident when the bug is fixed. Because of this, the CVE assignment team is overly cautious and assign CVE numbers to any bugfix that they identify. This explains the seemingly large number of CVEs that are issued by the Linux kernel team.

(And because this happens during the stable release process, there are a lot of 24-hour periods where they issue a ton of CVEs for all the minor bugs fixed in the release.)