One of the reasons COBOL lives is that most COBOL apps are is not UI-tied, meaning UI fads and changes don't affect what it does. Business and administration hasn't changed much since COBOL was designed, other than the fact we normalize a little better because our hardware got faster. People aren't tempted to refashion what they can't see. Java and C# couldn't replace COBOL's lasting power without standardizing business-oriented libraries.

I'd love to see that bridge wiped out, not just damaged. Send the Dali cargo ship near it.

In a statement the [Russian] embassy said its envoy "categorically rejected the accusations that Russian state structures were involved in the given incident ... as unsubstantiated and groundless."

If they ever said otherwise, poke me until I wake up, and/or check Puttie for a fever.

Many will merge into bigger co's. In the mad dot era around late 90's, our company's secret goal was to get bought out by a bigger co. or rival, as we knew we were skating on a sketchy business model.

Live by cutting edge, get cut by cutting edge. Tech is churn and burn.

Warning: Semi-off-topic Rant Ahead

Even with "regular" software, more devs and companies are more interested in chasing buzzwords than parsimony and simplicity. The result is a moving messy target. There are tools from the 90's that dev's are 4x more productive under because they are integrated tools rather than glued-on layers, requiring about 1/4 the code per feature. You don't need to worry about "separation of UI and biz logic" because BOTH are so compact that there is almost no down-side to mixing them in the same class. The separation-of-concerns movement was to manage bloated stacks & teams better, not an evolutionary step up.

They are not web-scale and not mobile-friendly, but that turned out not to matter. Internal biz didn't need mobile after all, and we spent all that bloat and trial-and-error trying to get dual-device layouts to work right in vein. People like to tell stories about how such tools became problematic when they needed "enterprise scale", but most our internal apps are not enterprise-scale.

The assumption is often that a web/enterprise tool can scale both down and up such that it's used on smaller projects also. Wrong Answer!* That's a failed assumption, creating bloated fragile smaller apps. One Tool Size Does NOT Fit All. Internal is not external. Desktop is not mobile. Small is not Web-scale. One of the reasons the F-35 got so expensive is that it tried to be everything to everybody. Maybe one day they'll make an affordable version, but the journey was expensive and bug-ridden.

Humans, you are doing IT wrong.

* It may be possible to have the small-end and big-end tools share a lot of features, conventions, and libraries, but not be the same tool. This hypothetical set should share what makes sense to share, and separate for target size when not. Do note that lack of data volume doesn't necessarily mean "simple". Billing can get rather complex for service companies, for example, but there is typically only say 30 invoiced being generated a day, including drafts.

Your "meat" doesn't work when you're only 8.

China should return samples from the near side first. When that secedes, then try on the far side.

Space is hard. Russia and the US had many many failed missions until they got sufficient experience. For example, US's Ranger 7 was the first successful Ranger mission*, as 1 thru 6 bit the dust; it became almost comical. (I have a draft script for a movie about the stressed Ranger team.)

Incremental is a safer bet.

* To get close-up photos of the moon's surface by taking rapid photos up until the time it intentionally crashes into the moon. Ranger was sort of like a Gatling gun of cameras in order to take and send images fast enough.

> This has to be the eighth time in the last twenty years that Microsoft has declared security to be the top priority, yet nothing ever changes.

I indeed remember multiple from the past also.

"But this time it's top top top priority, not just top top priority".

I once had a non-IT PHB-like manager who would rank ALL items on my to-do list "A+" (top-most importance). I pointed out that doesn't tell me which to start on first, but the PHB replied, "If I put B's and C's, you won't be motivated to get to them."

I was about to reply, but then bit my tongue, went back to my cubicle, and slapped my forehead for 10 minutes straight. How the F do humans that dumb get to be managers? Maybe they just *sound* smart to the extra stupid managers who promoted them? Explains certain politicians.

Xi: "Hey! I broke in first, Zork, now beat it!"

is there any hard data that it actually improves anything?

Yes, ChatGPT clearly states that it's cheaper and better than humans.

ChatTP

I swear I just got through a session with Esty chat support that sounds just like that: canned empathy. Real people did answer questions, but were aided by something making such fluffy statements in-between.

It's like the AI version of that phone-wait message that says, "Your call is very important to us" while you queue for half an hour.

I want deeds, NOT words!

And it would be more entertaining to have a sarcastic Bender-style bot, as long as I can call it nasty names back. Chewing out a LoutBot makes the wait feel shorter, and is cathartic.

Pronounce it "Pesky"

Regardless, this is gonna turbo-charge foil hats. I've been trying to find ways to make money off conspiracy nuts. It's a win-win: I'd get richer, and they'd get a much-needed wallet-spanking lesson in reality. Don't think of it as manipulation, but as Professor Reality getting paid for giving lessons.

Harvard claims it's part of academic freedom, and to let the scientific process correct bad ideas, not university administration. True or not, it seems an honest stance. But it may become a practical problem if too many attention-seeking nuts sink the U's reputation.

"How would you ever get rid of a poor leader? I mean, what if ants lived *thousands* of days? We'd be stuck with a bad queen seemingly forever!"

Stick them in a Truman Show tank, giving them plenty of distractions and fake admiration to keep them out of our hair.