Sounds about right. JJ Abrams movies are mindless action/adventure style flicks with an <X> theme/skin/style. Where <X> is Star Trek or whatever.

If that's what you're looking for, great. If you wanted an <X> movie, you're out of luck.

Naturally, that level of mindlessness is likely easy for today's AI to generate....

I did not think they were HO scaleâ¦.

Since sentience boils down to having at least one sense (input) and being able to make sense of it (make a model of it), it seems to be edging into yes.

An analogy I make with things in this field is that a human equivalent to these is someone with a super talent in remixing anything digital, but that is developmentally stuck as a three year old.

From what I recall of earlier work in the field, the three year old equivalency seems to be where things have been for well over a decade. And still is stuck there.

Making LLMs might be a research track to see if that gives people ideas in how to get past the three year old equivalency, but I fear the industry has widespread belief that LLMs will magically directly push past the stall.

Will it also achieve perfect compression down to a single bit?

Is there any job he wouldn't be able to weaponize? He was in the KGB for 16 or so years.

And never feed it after midnight.

An attacker getting a shell is better than them causing a denial of service? I donâ(TM)t think so.

And the same thing has happened in other contexts, with much longer grace periods.

When Solaris 2 shipped, it came with a deprecated Solaris 1 compatibility package. 20 years later (Solaris 11), the new servers no longer had it available. Cue all the developers writing new scripts yelling to be given access to something that was no longer there.

RS-232 is still standard, although it is something of a niche standard. This week I will be adding serial debug ports to five devices.

Huh, that is the same model I have. Small world. (I inherited mine from my grandparents.)

Anyway, this looks somewhat like the enterprise exchange setups I dealt with at some places, which, of course, could only provide such features when everyone involved was using the same server collection. They had various add-ons that handled mail with compatible servers at other authorized enterprise setups, and that blocked mail to addresses that they could not be sure would handle it.

The sites I was at were working on implementing an extension for dealing with the outside world that was supposed to cache the message on some login required server (ftp/http/whatever) and send a message containing an external-body-part to point back to it. Their attempts were horribly mangled though.

Apologies for any incoherence; I have slept about two hours out of the last 40.

In this decade, Iâ(TM)ve worked for some fairly large corporations. In my time there, Iâ(TM)ve been involved in creating migration paths to enable patching flaws that had been in place since some time in the 1980â(TM)s.

It didnâ(TM)t help that people like senior DBAs had been trained that all shell commands needed to be prefixed with sudo. At one site, we had an outside vendor setting up new specialized secure servers. One of the vendorâ(TM)s (mid-level) admins didnâ(TM)t know what file permissions were.

And I also have a few horror stories.

Obviously, if they're getting contract after contract, they are succeeding at one thing.

If that's their only success, that's their only expertise, and not what they claim for expertise.

Unfortunately, it seems a lot of companies over there are good at only one thing these days. And one that one thing never lines up with their marketing.

Yes, when I was looking for "entry level" positions, I was hard pressed to find one that didn't require a doctorate and "eight years of experience" with a given technology.

The job application system, of course, would require this even for technologies that were newer than that.

I ended up doing a lot of work outside my target market (developer) and ended up pigeon-holed into a different line of work (security admin).

That was roughly the situation in the U.S. long ago (at least for lower levels of education), but it was built on the how the culture of the time effectively restricted certain social classes (women) to certain job sets (education), which led to a relatively high number of smart, capable and at least somewhat idealistic applicants for relatively low cost (essentially by forcing greed out of the picture).

This was not, however, a bound relationship, so as the culture changed and employment opportunities broadened, the pool of quality applicants spread out over other jobs, and the educational system didn't adapt to find new ways to draw people in.

The capitalist approach in general is probably the result of someone looking at the above issue and, well, grasping at straws for some way to change things.

I've worked in a different field where my peers were mostly smart (90th percentile plus, we checked), capable (regularly tested), idealistic (audited) and non-greedy people. When polled for why they were working there, no one mentioned money. But when presented with the idea of working without pay, most countered that the requirement of having to pay the bills would force them to work elsewhere. "Greed" can be a relative term, and in the strictest sense you'd probably only find non-greedy people among those who don't have to deal with paying the bills.

Another aspect to all this though, is that even if you take money out of the picture, you're still changing this from one form of capitalism (money based) to another (capable people). After all, capitalism is fundamentally about leveraging resources. By de facto default these days, that resource is assumed to be money, but that's not always the best fit.

Uselessly short answer: Yes

Somewhat longer, there's probably a bunch of ways to parse this, such as this being the 26th time (year) they've used version 1, or this is their 26th revision of (the first set of) awards this year, or....

Maybe there should be an award for titles like this.