Apparently you didn't understand it.

This is confirmation bias. You noticed someone is better than you, and you jumped to the conclusion that it was talent. You couldn't conceive of any other hypothesis? If you can't think of anything else, there's a paper I linked to that will give you some ideas.

(As an aside, you played 10 years and couldn't make pretty music? Why didn't you practice making your playing pretty instead of just focusing on proficiency all the time?)

Interesting. What did he do on the board?

Good point. I guess that would be a good thing.......

I'm not entirely sure what you are saying lol. Is it that you don't like mythical man month?

The reality is, at the time the book was written, managers actually did consider man months to be a thing, and when a project was behind, they would just throw more people at it. The idea that doing so could actually put a project farther behind was actually novel at the time, although now it is obvious.

So in context of history, his main point makes sense; in deeper analysis, the book still has lots of good things. His analysis of printed documentation is probably out of date, though.

Jobs had skills. Think of it like this......imagine Donald Trump got placed as CEO of Apple in 1999. Would we see the iPod? Would we see the iPhone? Not at all, we would have seen a bankruptcy, because that's where Trump's skills lie. Trump is good at that, somehow Apple investors would have gotten more than they deserved from it, but we never would have seen the iPad.

For an even bigger contrast, think of what would happen if Carly Fiorina were in charge at Apple in 1999. Or even Larry Ellison. It wouldn't matter how much luck they had, those guys aren't going to run a company that invents an iPhone.

If you solved this problem by reducing the communication required between developers, then you basically solved it by building on his work.

He actually gives some ideas for how to integrate programmers to a project in a productive way. His point remains though, you can't just throw programmers at a project and expect it to work. You can't measure things in terms of "man months" and assume doubling the number of programmers will double the speed of completion.

Here is the relevant scientific paper.

Sure, he should have let Apple know. That was a mistake.

That said, Apple's bug process sucks, and letting people know about security bugs is a good thing, too.

How will this 'class' of exploit be impossible on the next version of OSX (and how is it impossible now)? All you need to do is find a bug in an approved program (like Safari, and there are bugs in Safari), then use this exploit to get root permissions.

This bug is clear evidence they don't have proper processes in place to give them security.

Last time I tried to report a bug to Apple through their bug tool, I got this error message. When I sent a message to the address in the error message, they responded, "please submit that bug through our error reporting tool." The initial bug I was trying to report still hasn't been fixed.

This vulnerability is already being exploited in the wild. In that case, responsible disclosure means announcing it publicly, so people can defend themselves. And if Apple gave him as much trouble as they gave me, I don't blame him for not reporting the bug to them.

It shows that Apple doesn't have proper processes in place to manage security properly. This kind of code should have been reviewed for security, but clearly it wasn't.

Here is a better link with more technical details.

It's a privilege escalation exploit, so an attacker would already need shell access on your computer to get something done. Every OS has privilege escalation vulnerabilities, because it's much harder to close all the holes when you allow someone to execute arbitrary code on a system.

That said, this is a particularly braindead bug from Apple, and it is worrisome because it shows they aren't thinking about security, or don't have proper processes in place to ensure the system stays secure. Their programmers should have known better than to create that kind of environment variable so lightly.

Auto-aim shouldn't matter? Why do you even think that? It makes no sense.

IBM makes plenty of money off their patent business. Something like $1billion a year.
You can be sure IBM will be looking to monetize these patents.

It's his own money. Who cares if it's a fallacy? The reality is, eventually we're going to need to switch to renewable energy. Non-renewable energy will run out by definition.

So if he wants to put his money into that, it might make the world a better place. And if it ends up with cheaper energy for everybody, it will make the world a better place. The cheaper energy becomes, the better.