True, SGID would affect the group it runs as, while SUID affects the user.

You could set up things so that a group has permissions to do what you want, instead of the root user. But then this also depends on the usecase, I’m not sure if having root group permissions would be enough in all cases.

What do you mean by “not require sudo privileges”?

Do you mean not require root permissions? that depends on what are you trying to do. You’ll need to make changes in your system to allow normal users to have permissions for it, and in many cases that’s not possible (or very safe).

If what you mean is that you don’t want to need to type"sudo" every time, but still be able to have the commands run with root permissions, then there’s multiple ways to do this:

• Add an alias such as alias command='sudo command'. If you don’t want to type the password, you can change the sudores file so that your user doesn’t need to enter a password when running sudo for that command (someone else in the comments already explained how to do that, using an entry with NOPASSWD: /usr/bin/command in the sudoers config).

• alternatively: set the SUID bit of the executable you want to run, so that every time the file is executed (by anyone) it will always execute as the user who owns the file (so if the owner is root, the file will always be executed as root)… this is not something I’d recommend though, since it can lead to security vulnerabilities.

If the original footage is so bad that “nonsense that people assume is part of the actual show” “could plausibly be there”, then the problem is not with the AI… it wouldn’t be the first time I’m confused by the artifacts in a low quality video.

What C does depends on the platform, the CPU, etc.

If the result actually differs due to compilers deviating in different architectures, then what we can say is that the language/code is not as portable. But I don’t think this implies there’s no denotational semantics.

And if the end result doesn’t really differ (despite actually executing different instructions in different architectures) then… well, aren’t all compilers for all languages (including Rust) meant to use different instructions in different architectures as appropriate to give the same result?

who’s to say what are the denotational semantics? Right? What is a ‘function’ in C? Well most C compilers translate it to an Assembly subroutine, but what if our target does not support labels, or subroutines?

Maybe I’m misunderstanding here, but my impression was that attempting to interpret the meaning of “what a function is in C” by looking at what instructions the compiler translates that to is more in line with an operational interpretation (you’d end up looking at sequential steps the machine executes one after the other), not a denotational one.

For a denotational interpretation of the meaning of that expression, shouldn’t you look at the inputs/outputs of the “factorial” operation to understand its mathematical meaning? The denotational semantics should be the same in all cases if they are all denotationally equivalent (ie. referentially transparent), even if they might not be operationally equivalent.

deleted by creator