I don't know about "need", but it's certainly common to reach out to them... But that doesn't mean that they respond quickly. Google does not have a rep for reliably getting back to people quickly or even at all, and when they do get back to people, they very often just say they can't comment, because there's no way for the people handling the press contact to reach a person who would know what was going on in a predictable manner. (Yeah, that sounds stupid. It is. And yet, nonetheless, you can regularly find that no one at Google can figure out who owns something or knows why it's the way it is.)
The key is, you do not "rephrase texts". You get a court order REQUIRING all communications to go through an app that can be monitored by the court for compliance with the protective order:
Otherwise... Honestly, the people who should be rephrasing the messages are quite possibly the police, depending on the terms of the protective order, but if the messages are that upsetting... Once you already have the protective order, the next step is enforcing it. Sorry.
(I am not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice. I heard about the program from a person I know who worked on it, which got me curious about the existence of such things.)
I'm super hyped about this, I've been working on this for the last couple-few years and I'm optimistic about the return to being primarily an open-source thing.
No, it did not used to be that "all forums had pervasive doxxing and swatting". That has never been true. It has never been widespread. Heck, swatting as we know it today wasn't even remotely common until quite recently, and doxxing has been actively frowned on and treated as potentially criminal since, like, the 80s.
I dunno what you think you're arguing, but it's nonsense.
Doxxing and swatting has always been frowned upon, but it continues to happen regardless. So the idea that it can be curbed through social stigma and criminalization is clearly false. The technology for surveillance and publishing has only improved over time.
The difference is that murder is not prone to sybil attacks. You could literally mass-automate doxxing and swatting if you wanted to. Like imagine that you just had a bot that just scraped PII from a website, purchased phone numbers off the DN, and then used text-to-speech to call in a bomb threat. You can conduct this attack anonymously from the other side of the globe.
In order to murder someone you would physically have to visit them and try not to get killed yourself. Anyone can defend against murder, but literally no one can defend against swatting. There is literally nothing you can do to legally prevent yourself from being swatted.
I honestly don't get what you are saying here. Because you can physically do something to prevent being murdered it's sensible to have laws against murder, but because you can't physically defend against swatting we should just accept it as part of our society?
I don't think that's what you are trying to say, but I can't put together what you are.
Okay, but consider that I might be better off with a machine that approves or disapproves based on credit history and credit score than a banker who won't lend to me unless I get my husband's signature because he doesn't think women should be making choices about money without their husband's approval. (But who wouldn't even blink at loaning money to a man without his wife's signature.)
Someone pointed out an obvious one: You can open the file "/dev/mem" or equivalent on many Unix systems and break things horribly, and rust can't tell that you're doing it or stop you. Someone used this to write an unsafe-free transmute, which is probably at least two different war crimes.
How would anyone go about preventing you from doing that?
Keep in mind /dev/mem is just a convention, I can just mknod it at any place in the filesystem I want. I can even put a FUSE overlay on it that would turn it into a regular file instead of a device node, so you wouldn't have any possible way of telling what you're about to do.
There is no "defense" against /dev/mem, that's just something you don't do as a sane programmer.
But you can get away with that in most languages that are generally considered memory safe, so a sane interpretation of the term "memory safety" wouldn't care about that.
You say it "comes off as part of an effort ... to mount another attack". Maybe it does to you, but I don't know why. I've never heard of this "fierce and dirty" competition between young languages. I've never seen anything even a bit like that. I've only seen fierce fighting between advocates of large well-established languages.
Xe's post struck me as accurate at the time, and having that context to compare with makes V look a little better now, because it at least establishes that progress is being made towards those claims.
I don't know where you're getting the idea that this is based on some kind of sinister "personal agenda" other than "this thing sounds interesting, I investigated it, it seems less cool now", which is a pretty defensible position for someone to reach.
It's not hard to articulate why: Nearly all the large numbers are beyond what anyone can actually pay. If you assume that the bet pays out at most 4 billion dollars, and simply can't pay more than that, suddenly the expected value is $32, instead of "infinite".
If you make concessions in a circumstance like this, you just have the same problem again in a few years. If doing this gets Putin anything at all that he wants, it will keep happening. We know this because it already did, more than once, and because we've all seen it before many times. Every concession made strengthens Putin and reinforces his desire to keep trying this.
If Ukraine's goal is to exist, concessions of any kind at all to Putin make that harder. It's not "because Russia is wrong" that I don't think they should make concessions. It's because, if they make concessions, Russia will try again, because it worked.
Also, I think you're massively overestimating the strength of Russia's position here.
