If authorities were able to shut down bitcoin support for the Canadian truckers strike, why even outlaw it?

The issue is that the hardware costs money to run. If you don't have a way to generate a proportionate return from using it, then you are still just sinking money into the black hole, and that is not sustainable.

Think about how it works with BTC mining - at a certain coin price and electricity cost, a given chip cannot mine a coin for less than the cost of the electricity to do so. So you would be a fool to run such a chip under those conditions, even if the chip was free.

AI at the moment is not generating anywhere near the revenue required to sustain the operating costs. It's entirely possible that if the bubble blows, many of these data centres cannot find loads that are not loss making. TBF, I imagine if you could discount the capital cost (which will happen when they go bankrupt), then I'm sure they'll be able to find some uses in things like research/rendering/simulation etc, but it will be brutal.

Search for 'Multi-Bit Error Vulnerabilities in the Controller Area Network Protocol'. (It's a thesis by Eushiuan Tran)

This issue is quite subtle, but essential, the fact that the CRC is applied before bit-stuffing means that a single bit error can cascade into multiple errors that exceed the detection limit for the CRC. The potential for this is fortunately rare, but it's like having holes in your bullet proof vest.

This is why CAN FD (apologies, I said 2.0 in the previous message) includes the stuff bits in the CRC (and then has to transmit the number of stuff bits), but this also has a problem, though I can't quite remember the details. It's better though.

Would getting arrested for buying drugs count?

What would you do about it? Would you support banning crapto? Would that be as successful as the war on drugs?

Who would have thought...

This has been going on since crapto became big enough and its likely a main reason crapto is still around? Crime-support in the from of tax evasion, crime financing and money-laundering was always a major application scenario for crapto. Obviously, it also serves as a scam vessel by "value" manipulation (see Musk and Trump, for examples doing that).

This is called "being careful". They could just have done what Boeing does and risked a few 100 dead but avoided that costly "recall". Instead they determined the possible causes and eliminated the most likely ones, and those include an unknown software fault. They currently are not finding that fault and hence they think it may have been a rare but possible event like a bit flip.

We need to push for CEOs to be replaced with AI. They'd do a better job and would cost a LOT less.

Start repeating this everywhere and get the meme-makers on it. It will be wonderful to watch them squirm as they suddenly find reasons why AI shouldn't replace a company's most valuable assets: its most highly-paid executives.

Nice! Also pretty accurate. Well, build houses of cards on sand and this happens. What I do not get is that these people do not see it. It is neither difficult to understand not is it without precedent. In fact, there is a very large body of examples from when other engineering disciplines struggled to get to maturity. And it is even in the mainstream media (for example the Titanic, Tchernobyl and Fukushima).

These people must be determinedly dumb, uneducated and incompetent.

Indeed. The problem of IT security has always been asymmetric, but AI makes this massively worse. The small advantages AI offers on the defenders gets annihilated and then steamrollered over by the advantages to the attackers.

Without the influx of tons of Windows people (that do not get it) into the Linux space, systemd would never have been a thing. That same problem could or could not happen with the xBSDs, but it should at the very least be far away. Meanwhile, all my Devuan installations and the few remaining non-systemd Debian installations continue to run perfectly fine and with no gross security problems.

I am currently beginning to think that Rust may actually improve software security. Not because of its features, but because of that steep learning curve. We have too many incompetents writing software. Rust may be too hard for them. If so, good.

But please, get the Rust spec done. A "secure" programming language without a spec is simply embarrassing.

Yep. The nuclear industry is famous for its bombastic empty promises. And the morons believing them.

And then run it without incident and good uptimes for at the very least 5 years. At that time I will start listening.

Before? The whole thing is just fantasies and hopes and dreams, no substance.