this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2026
904 points (99.0% liked)
Programmer Humor
32303 readers
2261 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Seriously, has no one heard of sandboxing?
Yeah, when my company first forced Claude on everyone the head engineers managed to negotiate that Claude would only run in a WSL sandbox. But people were lazy, so they just gave that WSL as many permissions as possible (Mounting C directly to it, opening up all interfaces, popping in full-access git tokens etc.). Then management sent out an extremely biased "survey" that has the question "Is having Claude in the WSL inconvenient to you?" and all the lazy bastards said yes. So now management lifted the sandboxing requirement to make work "easier" for devs. In the meantime, the engineers arguing for proper sandboxing are already so worn out from telling people to not intentionally compromise their sandbox that they've kinda just given up. Not having a sandbox at all isn't much more insecure than whatever people are already doing π«
I hope the engineers have a paper trail of emails advising against that.
I hope they have a good backup and recovery solution
Of course they do. It's even mounted rw at the root of the AI drive for ease of access in case something goes wrong.
I hope they dont so that it hurts and they maybe learn
So, earlier today I was being unhealthy on youtube, and someone half my age made a HUGE point to tell his audience including me that even if a self-driving Tesla runs a red light, it's the human driver that gets the ticket.
Now...I'm a pilot. I have been since I came in that guy's mom. In the aviation community, we have this concept called Pilot In Command. In the US, this is set into law in 14 CFR 91.3. The pilot in command of an aircraft is fully responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft. Not the administrator, not your instructor, not air traffic control, not the President of the United States, not god, the PIC. That concept doesn't exist in driver's ed, but it needs to. We need to teach student drivers about the Driver In Command responsibility.
Too long, didn't process the metaphor: Nobody thinks about anything they do unless the law requires it.
Well yeah, because there's no-one else with a set of controls in a car.
The concept absolutely exists in law but it's just called... "the driver."
There's another aviation term, "The Pilot Flying." The Pilot In Command bears the authority and responsibility. The Pilot Flying is doing the work of steering. If present, a Pilot Not Flying might help with checklists, system monitoring, navigation, radio communication, handling secondary controls like flaps and landing gear, but the Pilot Flying is in immediate control of the aircraft.
The PIC is very often not the pilot flying. I used to be a flight instructor, when teaching students who aren't yet qualified to command, I acted as Pilot In Command, but the student was the Pilot Flying as much as possible.
Autopilots have been a thing for most of aviation history. It doesn't count as a crewman. It's a piece of equipment like any radio or gauge. It is a tool at the PICs disposal. It is the PIC's job - sometimes delegated to the Pilot Flying - to monitor the autopilot and take over if it begins doing something wrong.
That's the concept that is missing with self-driving or driverless cars. Tesla drivers will sit in the driver's seat and abdicate command of the vehicle to the autopilot, or worse, cars are operating as taxis with passengers in the back seat and no one in the front seat, or with no onboard controls at all. Fully autonomously, or remotely operated by Southeast Asians who...totally have a valid American driver's license. Definitely.
Corporations love it. "Legally, the driver is responsible for the vehicle. Our car has no driver, so legally no one is responsible for the vehicle. Responsibility averted."
I think this is all a distraction. The law, and Tesla's non-marketing communication, are clear: unless in a pilot scheme, there needs to be a driver, and the driver is responsible and just remain in control and able to take over if the car fucks up.
Tesla is guilty of using misleading product badges ("full self driving") which invites illegal use, but this is not a problem with driver's education or their technical communication. Irresponsible owners ignore the technical communication and let the car drive while doing something else and being unable to take over. This is not a conceptual problem needing a radical new notion of "driver in command" though. It just needs manufacturers to describe their features accurately also when naming them. And it requires drivers to actually adhere to the rules which of course will never happen.
I'm thinking bigger than that. There are companies right now operating robotic taxis on American roads with no human operators on board. A car that may or may not even have a steering wheel arrives, a human passenger climbs into the back seat, and the car drives off with them. Who is legally responsible for the operation of that car? If it hurts someone, who do they sue? If it commits a crime, who do we punish?
I was under the impression those were pilot schemes.
But that's fair enough, in that situation - which is not the "Tesla driver playing video games" I think was under discussion before - someone does need to be declared responsible. I don't know the details of the agreements but I can imagine there isn't.
Well nowadays there is "someone else" (for a given definition of "someone") with a set of controls. Kids are being taught to drive in machines that literally drive themselves, and they need to learn that every decision that the self-driving computer makes ultimately falls on them as the driver. I think they were saying that this is a concept that needs to be taught, not a law that needs to be enacted.
That's not to say that a manufacturer is blameless when a FSD car careens into the side of a building at 80 mph. Just that immediate legal responsibility for the movement of a vehicle generally falls on a driver.
The concept is that anything that happens to that aircraft (or car) is the sole responsibility of the pilot. Flying into restricted airspace? If it's necessary to avoid a collision, you do it. Putting the plane down in a field? Better than hoping you can make it to a runway when your engine is out and lives are on the line. Another driver signals that you are clear to make a left turn on a congested road? Nope, because when that traffic you couldn't see hits you on the right, you're responsible for your car, their car, and all the people inside both vehicles.
Well not quite. A manufacturing or maintenance defect will not be the responsibility of the pilot (unless they should have spotted it on their walkaround)
I'm not sure what comparison you're trying to make though; the grandparent said there needs to be a similar concept for cars, I said that there already was one. Are you agreeing or disagreeing that there already is one? Are you saying that, at present, the driver would not be responsible for moving into traffic if someone else had flashed their lights? Because that is certainly not true where I live.
The problem is that in that case, due to poor training or judgement, the person driving the turning car did not consider themselves solely responsible for the safe operation of the vehicle, they let the driver in the signaling car decide if it was safe.
It's subtle, but it happens all the time, because we don't train drivers to think that way.
In my country, we do train drivers to think that way, and then drivers stop thinking that way because they're lazy.
The difference here is not a conceptual one where drivers don't understand rationally that they're respondible for their actions, it's one of standards and levels of training.
Wait whose mom? The youtuber? You were unhealthily watching your son whose half your age? And you became a pilot the same day of the conception and have been ever since.....
If I solve this do I get to join Mensa?
Unhealthily watching = scrolling shorts for too long.
Are you under the impression that everytime someone comes inside a woman that woman becomes pregnant, and that this can only happen one time in a woman's life?
Either that, or by "unhealthily", maybe he was obsessed with this kid's channel so much he went out and seduced the kid's mom as some kind of display of ultimate dominance, maybe using "I just got my pilot's license" as an opener.
...Or yeah his kid who he conceived when he got his pilot's license is now half his age and runs a YouTube channel, and excessive YouTube is unhealthy by default. . .maybe that one's more likely. π
I don't really see how fist fighting Arabs helps.