I get the feeling that many people who will be opting for AI/cybersecurity are hoping to somehow get the gold star of approval that allows them to get a paycheck for not actually doing work.

Kind of like how a lot of people wanted to get hired by the big tech companies (meta, alphabet, apple, amazon, netflix, etc.) and draw a 6 figure salary for basically doing nothing - except maybe video blogging about how they were making a 6 figure salary for basically doing nothing.

I would caution people trying to treat this as the new MBA with an observation - if there's sufficient supply of "AI" degree graduates, then the individual value of that degree drops, same as with the MBA. The people getting wealthy at this stage of the game are the ones starting their own companies, or who already have established research pedigrees that make them prime poaching material.

Anybody trying to get a degree in "AI" right now that takes them out of the workforce for 4 years is going to get an incredibly rude shock when they graduate and find that most everything that doesn't relate to fundamentals (like data science, OSI, etc.) they learned is no longer relevant. Remember how hot "prompt engineering" was at one point? Yeah...

That's totally ridiculous! -- brought to you by Carl's Jr.

Read my post again. You didn't understand it.

For a long time slashdot was blocking them for me, as some sort of legacy reward. That stopped, but the ads have been unobtrusive so I left it unblocked. Last week I started seeing an ad that stayed on the screen when scrolling. I was about to start blocking, but that ad has disappeared. So for now this is one of the few sites I don't block.

Last I checked Ruby execution was slow compared to Python. That, however, tells you where you shouldn't use it, not *that* you shouldn't use it. And Ruby can easily call C routines (with the usual caveats).

OTOH, in some task spaces, design in Ruby is fast compared to design in Python, and in almost all it's fast compared to design in C. (That said, I generally prefer to design in Python and then re-implement in C++.)

Whether it's serious or not depends on what you're doing. For me it fails only because I require Doxygen compatibility. (Mind you, I would rarely choose to use *only* ruby, but for some things it would be the superior choice.)

OTOH, Ruby is not a low level choice. It's a slightly higher level than Python. And I often design things in Python and then convert them to C++ (with, of course, minor rewrites).

So, "What do you mean by 'serious'?".

I mean... maybe software companies will finally start to optimize code instead of expecting cheap hardware to cover for them?

The nastier alternative is people are forced to push more of their data into the "cloud" for computing and storage, ironically, because now only the datacenters can afford upgrades...

Do these people really think they're hiding Directive 4 from us?

Car companies could sell midrange, mid-size cars, toyota sells these in pretty much every country on the planet, but they're nowhere as profitable as selling a $12,000 truck with a lift kit and leather interior for $55,000. Those vehicles exist but they've stopped selling them in the us because theyve found they can just exclusively sell high margin cars instead and maximize shareholder value

We are only a year out from the murder of a health-insurance executive, so the police are more on edge than usual.

Then we need to threaten such things much more often, so that the cops will eventually get used to it, and relax. ;-)

Debian never tried to kill me through my computer. I'd appreciate it if my car manufacturer made their car as safe as my computer.

Fuck it, I just want a Debian car. Then I won't need to extract bloody vengeance from beyond the grave, as my zombie revenant tracks down the CEO of Subaru, and the rotting flesh of my hands tightens around his throat as payment for the time a popup distracted me.

Some people are busting out "definitions" of "End to End Encryption" but people were already using that as in informal descriptive term long before your formalized technical jargon was made up. Nobody should be surprised if there are mismatches. Have faith in our faithlessness.

I personally view the term as an attempt to call semi-bullshit on SMTP and IMAP over SSL/TLS. In the "old" (though not very old) days, if you sent a plaintext email (no PGP!), some people would say "oh, it's encrypted anyway, because the connection is encrypted between your workstation and the SMTP server, the connection from there to some SMTP relay is encrypted, the connection from there to the final SMTP server is encrypted, and the recipient's connection to the IMAP server is encrypted."

To which plenty of people, like me, complained "But it's still plaintext at every stop where it's stored along the way! You should use PGP, because then, regardless of the connection security, or lack of security on all the connections, it is encrypted end to end. Never trust the network, baby!"

Keep in mind that even when I say that, this is without any regard for key security! When I say E2E encrypted, it is implied that the key exchange may have been done poorly/incorrectly, mainly because few people really get to be sure they're not being MitMed when they use PGP. You can exchange keys correctly, but it's enough of a PITA that, in the wild, you rarely get to. You usually just look up their key on some keyserver and hope for the best. Ahem. And I say "usually" as if even that happens often. [eyeroll]

Indeed, every time I hear about some new secure messaging app/protocol, the first thing I wonder is "how do they do key exchange?" and I'm generally mistrusting of it, by default. And sometimes, I'm unpleasantly unsurprised, err I mean, cynically confirmed.

But anyway, if my E2E definition matches yours, great! And if it doesn't, well, that's ok and it's why we descend into the dorky details, so that we can be sure we're both talking about the same thing.

The real question is "Will they re-release the roadrunner cartoons?".

Do you really think fiction is a reasonable source of facts?

Remember that models used from a decade or more ago always make simplifying assumptions, and that those tend to be unquestioned until data shows that they must be. Even now climate models can't handle all the variables known to be needed. Turbulence is *extremely* difficult to handle. And there probably is some "butterfly effect". The way that's normally handled it to run an ensemble of models with slightly different conditions, but they may all make some of the same simplifying assumptions.

Well, panspermia is possible, but not extremely likely. OTOH, if life started on Mars, it could well have spread to Earth on impact debris. The further away, the less likely. But remember that yeast have survived in space conditions for months, perhaps years...and that wasn't in extreme cold (though it was in inactive form).

OTOH, years is different from centuries. And for interstellar trips in a comet, centuries wouldn't be enough.