We're delighted to finally announce the first official release of hs-bindgen, a tool that automatically generates Haskell bindings from C headers. Read the announcement at https://t.co/0Y9LG7ZJim or check it out at https://t.co/LQZYZH7TOi .
Check out this loser!
>uploads a draft to Chat on Sept. 8th
>gets scooped by Chat on Oct. 6th
"The result released by OpenAI (#311) on October 6, 2026... identical to a preliminary version of the present paper that was uploaded to ChatGPT on September 8, 2026"
LMAO get rekt
The boom in Linux CVEs lately should get you thinking.
Surely, given a finite codebase, there are also a finite number of bugs / unintended behavior, thus, a finite amount of vulnerabilities. Theoretically, a “solvable” problem. Right?
Well…not at all actually.
It gets a bit philosophical, but there’s the concept of “weird machines”.
A weird machine is an accidental computer located inside of another computer program. Quite a few exploits (e.g. anything ROP) falls into this category, where the attacker’s instruction set consists of fragments of the original software.
Finite code can *easily* have infinite Unintended Behavior (not undefined behavior btw…that’s a very different thing). Weird machines don’t even have to be Turing complete to be, really, really powerful!
Even if you have a million superhuman AI coders and fuzzers thrown at the Linux kernel, you quickly hit halting-problem-esque uncomputable states. The concept of patching every possible bug until none remain isn’t possible, because we can’t often correctly define what a “bug” even is.
Now, can you make a kernel that truly has zero weird machines relative to a formal specification? ….yes, but it wouldn’t look like Linux. It’d look more like sel4, VxWorks, or (shudder) INTEGRITY-178.
Hey, happy to announce that the RAD Debugger is now available for Linux (in alpha). It is early and preliminary! Expect random weirdnesses *for sure*, but it is ready to be played with!
https://t.co/XLpdRIMcUm