In lua you will typically lua_pcall() the entry function written in Lua, but it will often call back into your C functions to do various tasks. Now if your C functions do anything with the lua stack, that might cause OOM, but now your lua_pcall() will catch that - or any sort of error catching inside Lua itself - and you’ll be looking at an accidental recovery situation.

At least that was how things looked like when I last poked around Lua a few months ago.

So as far as I know, it’s actually not trivial to make Lua safely abort on OOM, and it’s not the default behavior. I also don’t think there are lua_push* function alternatives available using the default C API that don’t longjmp in a likely often unsafe manner out of your C code if you use them and you hit OOM.

Summed up, I would expect many Lua integrations to have the same problem.

but what about vulnerabilities in the web server? 😱

What about Lua? https://hachyderm.io/@ell1e/117480515499692140 I think e.g. nginx and OpenDKIM have Lua scripting integrations.

Seems like NetBSD might also be an interesting option!

Right wing extremists aren’t really known for being smart (outside of perhaps some of the paid grifters).

it is very possible an authority equivalent to Let’s Encrypt will come about

So why shouldn’t we tell people to boycott the tech until then? Even then, that doesn’t solve the threat of a hardware attestation toggle.

using a passkey is the equivalent of HTTPS’s TLS packets

I disagree.

Let’s Encrypt was only founded in 2012 (and announced 2014) with general availability in 2016,

I wouldn’t agree HTTPS was unproblematic before Let’s Encrypt existed, so I’m not sure where you are going with this. The average person doesn’t need a HTTPS cert issued, which I would say is comparable to the average citizen using a passkey. If only some spaces, e.g. enterprise, use them then it’s not a real problem. But that’s why it seems problematic to me once passkeys are pushed for general use.

you’ve also missed the point of

I don’t think that I did, but my apologies if that is the case.

In my uninformed opinion, it casts quite some doubt on the narrative that it’s absurd that courts will somehow decide against AI, or that the use will “clearly” not ever turn out to be a fundamental problem later. And again, there are multiple cases where this happened, it’s not just one judge.

But I’m not a legal expert so keep that in mind and don’t trust me. (However, I’m making an educated guess that perhaps you aren’t one either. My apologies if that is incorrect.)

deleted by creator

My apologies, it was an attempt at humor which I can see backfired. 😬

Now as for the case selection, I personally find the regional case interesting because it appears to show the possibility of courts seeing this differently. There are more out there than the ones I quoted.

And I think there might be a possible misunderstanding, sorry about my lack of clarity: I wasn’t trying to prove that this is for sure a copyright infringement, since I’m not a lawyer anyway. But I think it’s pretty obvious NVidia doesn’t care if it turns out to be one - that’s at least my personal opinion.

And still no response here: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/e12330b9-c29e-45ca-9375-9e3d13426d85@horse64.org/T/

I wonder when somebody’s going to fork the Linux Kernel based on a pre slop version. Seems almost inevitable to eventually happen at this point.

Once there is one, people can test. It would be interesting for sure. (I say that as mostly an LLM hater. But I’d like to see adoption of a solution that is less problematic for everyone. I think most people would agree that would be an improvement.)

oh you sweet summer child… (edit: sorry for my attempt at a lighthearted quip that people ended up hating 🫣)

https://www.twobirds.com/en/insights/2025/landmark-ruling-of-the-munich-regional-court-(gema-v-openai)-on-copyright-and-ai-training

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-judge-approves-anthropics-15-billion-settlement-copyright-lawsuit-2026-07-20/

(I’m just linking random lawsuits. I’m not a lawyer, this isn’t legal advice.)

Also, there are a ton of licenses where reproducing them in full is probably using them as intended, think of the GPL for example. But that doesn’t say anything about plagiarizing excerpts without attribution or licensing info. So just putting them on hugging face is potentially not quite the same as basing an LLM on it, I think. Anyway, I’m not a legal person so don’t ask me for the details - but you’ll be able to find plenty of articles on this by people actually qualified to talk about it.

Oh I know I have a TPM, yes. I blacklist all the Linux TPM modules though. Screw that thing.

This is the article that converted me into a TPM hater: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.en.html (And SystemD hater, since Lennard Poettering was employed by Microsoft for a while, the ones that control the TPM default signatures, and now apparently tries to get Linux to use secure boot signing everywhere. Very suspicious.)

Like, yeah, GNU/FSF tend to be radical with many opinions and that’s not everyone’s cup of tea. But I feel like this article has a point.

But large companies that want customers? They want to make it as easy as possible for their customers to connect. They’re not going to force people to have a hardware device which if damaged or lost will lose them a customer. That’s just not what they want.

I would say this is already proven to be wrong, since Microsoft Windows appears to be already doing exactly that with the special hardware device “TPM”: https://rossmanngroup.com/services/encrypted-data-recovery/bitlocker …in regular customer machines.

Passkeys officially have TPM support: https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn-2/#sctn-tpm-attestation Let’s Encrypt doesn’t require a TPM. Passkeys can apparently require an actual closed-up DRM anti user hardware component to sign what you’re doing.

While Let’s Encrypt requires an external party for signing, 1. it’s not something the average citizen needs or uses a lot, unlike potentially passkeys, 2. there is no variant of it that works via special DRM hardware that they try to establish everyone as having.

Also, Let’s Encrypt is a non-profit while the common Passkey server-side storage vendors don’t seem to be.

Anyway, that’s just my opinion.

👎 Doubt it: https://github.com/swiss-ai/apertus-tech-report/issues/10 (I’m not a lawyer, this isn’t legal advice.)

👎 https://huggingface.co/datasets/nvidia/Nemotron-CC-Code-v1 They’re using Common Crawl and there’s no mention of filtering for public domain licenses in this text. Pretty safe to say it’s probably a bad dataset. (In my opinion. I’m not a lawyer. This isn’t legal advice.)

People upvote because they hate change.

People upvote because big tech has a tendency of forcing the most anti ownership outcome possible on everyone. Here, such an outcome likely would be mandatory passkeys that are set up to require hardware attestation.

One way to reduce that risk is to boycott passkeys until TPM and hardware attestation are removed from the standard. You may not think that’s a fair response, or that such a boycott won’t save us from the inevitable outcome, but nevertheless it’s not a completely irrational reaction.