Really? You think at this point SpaceX is just going to throw up its hands and say "never mind" on Starship? I'm trying to imagine why they would do that.

I think you're right. If he thought he knew anything - in either direction - he'd be all in. Instead he's just throwing his hands up.

Sure in /., but many more in http://reddit.com/r/iphone12mi..., https://www.reddit.com/r/iPhon..., etc. ;)

My only guess is drugs.

If you want to know these things have you looked for the answer?

It's Toyota. They are known. They employ over 63,000 Americans already. They are good jobs. This announcement marks the start of producing batteries - not some hazy "agreement" about the future if this and if that and if the other. It's a done deal and it's a good thing.

Sounds easy, but Musk has been there, Jobs has been there, Gates has been there...

Also, good for Homie the Clown from Living Color TV show.

Not sure because these chips cost so much to operate in energy costs. If enough efficiency gains are made it would be cheaper to buy and run new ones than to run old ones to do the same tasks. When data center companies start building their own nuclear power plants you know there is a LOT of money to be saved by increasing efficiency.

... Larry Ellison!

For an additional fee.

THAT, I believe, is the main part of this change. Ryan Air already doesn't even break even on the pure ticket cost. It's the horrendous extra fees that make it profitable.

Which cost, exactly?

We are speaking about paper boarding passes the customers themselves print. The gates read the barcode and don't care if it's on paper or a phone screen.

So which cost, exactly?

That's putting it mildly.

Smartphones can crash, run out of battery or any number of problems. On important trips I usually have a paper boarding pass with me as a backup. Only needed it once, but I'm just one person with fairly normal travel amounts. Multiplied over the number of people flying Ryan Air, statistically speaking this happens constantly.

Frankly speaking, I think it's a gimmick to milk the customers for more money. Someone at Ryan Air has certainly done the calculation, estimated how many people can't access their boarding pass at the gate for whatever reason, and how much additional money they can make by forcing all these people to pay the additional fee for having it printed.

By the same token, I was reading for years how China's construction market was the biggest bubble in history and was going to pop so hard the nation would be an economic black hole. Is that still going to happen or what?

That, or your project gets sidelined. Which is where the danger lies.

I work for a big multinational software company that uses a lot of Open Source Software. We have a security office that audits all of our products several times a year. If any piece of our stack shows any open CVEs we have a fixed amount of time to fix the issue, with the amount of time varying from a few days (for CRITICAL severity issues) to roughly half a year for the lowest severity issues. A lack of a fix for a published CVE isn’t an excuse for not fixing the issue on our end — the software still has a security flaw in it, and the organization is so incredible security averse (thanks in part to having contacts in the defence industry) that they don’t want to risk expensive lawsuits and the loss of reputation if a vulnerability is exploited.

A lot of bigger organizations now work this way. We’ve all seen what has happened to organizations that have had significantly security breaches, and it’s not pretty. Our customers are big corporations and government entities — and if they even sniff a risk there are going to be problems. So if there is an unpatched exploit, we’re expected to either switch to something comparable, or DIY a solution (either replacing the library in question, or potentially patching it ourselves).

If ffmpeg allows known and published vulnerabilities to languish, the risk here is that organizations that use their code will simply stop using it and will look for other solutions. That’s a tough pill for an Open Source Software developer to swallow, especially when they make it as big and important as ffmpeg. You might wind up in a situation where an entity like Google forks your code and takes ownership, and eventually gets everyone to migrate to using their version instead (like what they did with WebKit to Chrome), leaving you sidelines. Or maybe someone else jumps in with a compatible solution that works well enough for enough users that they switch to that instead.

Now in an ideal world, the Google’s of this world would not only submit a CVE but would also submit a patch. Having been an OSS developer myself I’ve always encouraged my staff if they find a bug in a piece of software we use to file a bug report and ideally a patch if they know how to patch the issue correctly — but I know that is hardly universal within our organization, and probably even less so elsewhere.

TL;DR: a lot of OSS success relies on having lots of users, or at least some big and important users. But you risk losing those if you leave CVE’s open for too long, as company policies may require scrapping software with unfixed CVEs. That loss of users and reputation is dangerous for an OSS project — it’s how projects get supplanted, either by a fork or by a new (and similar) project.

Yaz

Look what he responded to.

People toss out a throwaway allegation and then expect you write a dissertation to rebut it.