Moral from the original ACM paper: "The moral is obvious. You can't trust code that you did not totally create yourself. (Especially code from com- panies that employ people like me.) No amount of source-level verification or scrutiny will protect you from using untrusted code. In demonstrating the possi- bility of this kind of attack, I picked on the C compiler. I could have picked on any program-handling program such as an assembler, a loader, or even hardware mi- crocode. As the level of program gets lower, these bugs will be harder and harder to detect. A well-installed microcode bug will be almost impossible to detect."
this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2025
33 points (86.7% liked)
Programming
23074 readers
292 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Videos that should have been articles?
At least someone is making informative content in an accessible format without trying to get me to buy whatever is the brand of the month.
I'd much rather watch that than the videos that should have been a paragraph.
Plain text is significantly more accessible.
I tend to listen to videos in the car or when I'm walking around or otherwise doing something else like washing the dishes, so not always.
That's a matter of some debate.
With all the various neurodivergencies and ways people are wired differently, language comprehension or barriers, not to mention physical or mental handicaps, a video might very well be easier to help someone absorb the information.
I wholeheartedly agree it's not for everyone, but it is certainly for someone, and the more ways available to consume and process information, the better for us all as a whole. At least when it comes to educational and unbiased content, which seems to be the intention of this YouTuber.
Had it been a Computerphile video, would you have said the same ?
Depends. Is it an article, or is it a video?
Yeah I will literally never watch any of these subscription/sponsor-begging "youtubers". All of the videos of this kind should just be text. Keep your goofy over-the-top facial expressions and quirky delivery to yourself, please.
The good news is that they've never had an original thought in their life and these videos do already exist as articles, which they've stolen and repackaged into video form.
Here is the original content for this video: https://doi.org/10.1145%2F358198.358210
Dude, people are still asking wtf functors, monoidd, monads, and other such things are and there are papers written about those things all the time. Why is it so hard to accept that not everybody can stay awake while reading a scientific article? Are you just unwilling to accept that videos are easier to consume?
Some people cannot understand what such scientific articles are saying because of how they were written and for which audience. Are you unaware that visual aids and animations exist? Do you think describing something is always better than showing it? There is a reason the expression "a picture can say more than a thousand words".
Yes, there are some videos that are just somebody reading an article to you with no added content, but I feel like this argument is brought jp regardless of video. Providing a DOI:// link just makes me shake my head.
None of what you described requires a video. Articles can be written for different audiences, and, in fact, are much more capable of mixed-media content. Text can be selected/copied/consumed by screen readers etc, graphics can be embedded with accessibility information (unlike videos, which can easily contain inaccessible content), images can contain controls that allow one to pan, zoom, etc. and can be separately downloaded, other file types can be embedded with their own controls (including animations, as needed). Relevant related content (like, say, documentation) can be linked inline where it's referenced, rather than dropping a huge bag of links in a video description. Articles can be indexed, searched, translated, and more. Articles also allow each person to consume the content at their own pace, rather than whatever pace is determined by the person in the video. I personally find videos agonizingly slow compared to how fast I can read.
Videos are an ineffective mechanism for communication of information, particularly for information that is more complex or technical in nature. They are popular due to the ever-shrinking attention span of people, but that doesn't mean we should optimize for that.
I'll hold on to my opinion, you'll hold on to yours. Just don't think your opinion is fact, or even worse, universal.
One last thing: videos can be sped up.
Me need silly face for learn!!!! Me no read!!!! 🤤
Are you unaware that visual aids and animations exist? Do you think describing something is always better than showing it?
Because these just can't be present in an article, of course?
I know learning styles have been disproven, but you might find it worth your time to read the findings where they talk about how certain things are better taught or absorbed in a different manner. Mocking others for consuming things differently doesn't make you look more educated.
Why is it so hard to accept that not everybody can stay awake while reading a scientific article?
I'm a PhD researcher and even I struggle staying awake sometimes.
No seriously, I fully agree, scientific articles are written for a specific, niche audience, i.e. not the general public. But science should be communicated to the public, in as accessible a format as possible. If you fail to do that, you get people saying "science is boring", or worse, mistrust of science like it exists today.
And another thing: this shouldn't be either-or between watching a video and reading an article. Watch the video, get a general understanding of the topic, see if it interests you. If you want to know more, dive into the article to deepen that understanding. I guarantee you'll get a better understanding that way, because watching the video has already given you a general structure of the topic. Reading then serves to add details in that structure.
Thanks, I fully agree with you.
The elitist attitude that "videos can't teach you anything" or "information is worthless if consumed as a video" just bothers me. It's just contra productive to the goal of disseminating knowledge and understanding to completely ignore or belittle one medium.