Surely the exercise that comes with using public transport outweighs that. I feel like being able to zone out and not having to focus on driving, is more relaxing to me.

Yup, public transit over driving for me any day. I grew up in NYC which has a relatively nasty public transit system too.

I wonder how their talks with Apple went. Having this run on the TPU opposed to just the GPU, which drains a significant amount of battery life by comparison, is what I'm really interested in.

The fact that those issues existed for so long while the entire time where not issues with other inference runtimes is more the point. And I think are indicative of future incompetence.

I wish there was a culture in the team I'm in now to share each others dotfiles (which I feel would lead into sharing so much more including tools, processors, etc), especially since I fall into that group of the new, younger rookie. I appear to work with people who have a lot of experience and knowledge and the atmosphere is seemingly otherwise not competitive (non profit organisation). Is this common? Is it going to be hard to find a team like that?

Why ELI8 and not the ubiquitous ELI5?

Funny. Because I was not aware of that acronym and only saw "ELI8" when I prompted "explain like I'm eight years old".

I've been to IMAX a lot of times and not a single time had a bad audience member. Whereas I've had at least one at each of the independent and arthouse ones I've been to sadly. I suspect in my case the tickets being significantly more expensive at IMAX keeps any disruptive people away.

Kagi do have an LLM offering if that's what you still want. While still benefiting for your own search results curation and being more privacy orientated. I'm very happy that I can basically have the best of both worlds from them.

Since this enables container escape, sounds like this might still impact quite a lot of us?

I guess, if you thought Docker/etc. was a security boundary

They are a security boundary. The fact that you need a vulnerability to escape them is proof of that. They just don't have a particularly high cost of escape because reachable kernel vulnerabilities are so common.

Some people clearly do use containers as deployment mechanism, with security not in mind.

s/some/most/

That's not meant to be snide, just true, I think.

I never understood why kubernetes doesn't use a VM-per-pod model by default.

Escape from docker containers is trivially easy, if you are able to run as the root user in the container itself.

Many (maybe most) containers actually default to running programs as root. Kernel exploit not required.

If you are given a shell with `docker run -it --rm alpine:3 sh`, can you read the /etc/shadow on the host without kernel exploit? Assuming the docker and kernel are sufficiently update-to-date (e.g. latest Docker on Debian Stable).

No.

The "root" you get in docker is not actually root outside of the namespace the container in running in.

Assuming no bugs in the kernel, it should not be able to do anything more than the UID that it's mapped from.

Does Docker use user namespaces by default? Otherwise root in the container is actually root on the host, from what I read. Correct me if I'm wrong.

(Privileges are still limited by seccomp filters blocking some syscalls, and there's SELinux to block some other stuff, but it's still the actual root user without user namespaces, I think?)

That's right. Docker still runs without user namespaces by default, which means that root is the same user inside and outside of the container. This does open up attack surface and configuration footguns.

Confinement still leverages dropping some root caps, seccomp, various other namespaces, etc.

I don't think this is true, otherwise you could just load a kernel module into the host kernel from a container.

Root is not just one thing on modern Linux, almost all in-kernel privilege checks are now gated via (slightly) more fine-grained capabilities and the default capability set for Docker containers disallows module loading (CAP_SYS_MODULE) and the relevant syscalls (namely (f)init_module) are also blocked with seccomp.

People still should use user namespaces (and tools like Podman and Incus do by default) but basic stuff like that is not the reason.

It is very possible to load a kernel module into the host from a container.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/33013539/docker-loading-...

FYI, looks like you are shadowbanned.

Presumably Docker's seccomp profile [1] blocks the init_module system call which is used by insmod [2]. Although, looking at the default profile, it seems to explicitly allow it - but maybe only if you have CAP_SYS_MODULE, which I think means running Docker with "--cap-add=SYS_MODULE".

[1] https://docs.docker.com/engine/security/seccomp/

[2] https://tldp.org/HOWTO/Module-HOWTO/x627.html

There are a million ways to load a kernel module from inside of a container into the host kernel (ie: to trigger a load), but seccomp/ linux caps will block the direct ways (as another commenter notes).

At least podman does if running rootless, I assume docker supports rootless operation as well.

Not sure about running rootful though. I don't really use rootful containers personally.

Hmm. Either I've lost my mind, or you're running a different Docker than me, or you're thinking of some strange scenario such as a Mac where docker is actually inside a VM, or you're wrong.

While there is a feature to do with UID mapping, it doesn't actually work/isn't usable/nobody uses it in current docker iirc.

Therefore root in the container very much is root on the host.

UID mapping is how rootless docker works, so tons of people are using it

I don't think this would change anything even if it were true, which it is not. Running as root in a container opens up tons of footguns but it is not a path out of the container on its own.

> They are a security boundary

My mistake, leaving out some adjective one could interpret as a misunderstanding of containers as an effective (etc.) security boundary. Fool me 100+ times and all that.

There must be at least a triple-digit number of CVEs by now demonstratimg that in practice containers are a thinner layer of security (perhaps not quite as thin as the classic recommendation of running SSH on a nonstandard port, but that might be leaning toward the safer side of analogies vs. malicious code!) rather than a boundary like virtualization (not perfect but a best practice for isolation).

Runpod, digital ocean's gpu cloud, and at least a few others use Linux containers for isolation between tenants (look at Wiz's blog post about the nvidia container toolkit bug; digitalocean just puts everyone in a massive k8s cluster)

Why aren’t they using a fast VM like Firecracker?

To squeeze out 5% more profit.

There was a virtual machine KVM escape found like 2 weeks ago.

Nothing is a security boundary anymore.

I know there's a lot you can do in k8s to mitigate it, but I didn't think that prevented it outright.

A lot of us rely on Linux containers' being escape-proof?

I would have hoped that only a few of us are so misinformed as to do that.

If you run critical containers under Linux instead of a dedicated hypervisor, you deserve to get hacked.

Which sadly appears to not even be holding for them now that they decided to start displaying ads on their App Store.

Do not forget the new recents ads in Apple Maps.

I feel like the suggestion to just delete your Meta account is unhelpful and even harmful in some situations. I know a lot of us in this field don't mind having a small social circle, but for us that struggle to even have that, or that the process of doing that, requires you to be as open and reachable as possible to make it easier to create or maintain friendships, this often requires having an account to use Messenger (I know regionally this may differ).

Being difficult in this way, when most other people, particularly non technical people, don't have a problem with this, in my experience significantly hurts your opportunities and limits the types of people you socialize with in real life, which I think can eventually be harmful.

I do some IRL activities where many of the participants use social media apps to coordinate and plan sessions. I don't have any of these accounts so while I do miss out on some of the casual things, I just show up and still get 80% or more of the interaction and all of thething I'm after in the first place: doing stuff.

You really can live without social media.

Why not just text people? Am I missing something?

That works when you already have an established connection with someone, but it doesn’t work so well for making new connections.

I’ve deleted all my Meta accounts and other social media accounts and have lost touch with many people and find it much harder to meet new people.

Personally, I accept that tradeoff but can see how others wouldn’t (or can’t).

There are a lot of group chats I'm not in because I'm not on messenger.

Messenger is the only thing I kept my Facebook account for. I don't use any of their other products.

I don't know how old you are but I'm 44 and in my experience, you really should prefer quality over quantity.

I don’t think it is so binary.

If there is more friction to communicate with me I expect to hear from people less often.

As an example, my friends that only use Discord and not SMS or Signal definitely hear from me less frequently. It doesn’t mean we’re not friends, but we do communicate less frequently.

I am not a sparkly special pretty princess. My friends are where they are. In the trade off between meeting people where they're at or doing something unique to me with friction to them, I know which one wins.

(note - this is snarky and I don't actually fully disagree with you)