The Tragically Hip sang "New Orleans is sinkin' man and I don't wanna swim". Substituting "Mexico City" for "New Orleans" just doesn't sound right!

In a book published in 1973, Dorothy L. Retallack described experiments in which plants responded differently to different kinds and volumes of music. Her methodology and conclusions were criticized and to some extent discredited. Nevertheless, I think the fact that she did experiments and described results that overlap with those referred to in TFS disqualifies that "first direct evidence" claim.

That's supposed to be the perfect state for Buddhist meditation and the path to true zen.

(But what's AC's excuse for possibly living that way? Or just another AI sock puppet?)

(And of course I'm reading another book on the topic. Oh wait, I see there are two of them. Maybe three?)

So you don't believe Epstein was an alien, eh? No one's told you about the REAL conspiracy?

I think you should have been modified Funny rather than insightful. Even funnier with some tail-wagging-dog angle about the let's-not-call-it a war in Iran.

Got me to look at AC. Unthanks, even if there might have been an atom of substance in there somewhere. Feeding the sock puppets and trolls is one of those tricks that never works.

(Like solutions that will never happen because Slashdot lacks a financial model that can support improvements, be they ever so evolutionary. Increasingly clear to me that part of the website I am looking for would involve a different kind of financial model... Slashdot is just one of those ancient portable nuisance things?)

Now to look for the obvious joke about the distractive motivation...

How do you complain about dupe without saying dupe (or duplicate)? Citing FP and this thread. But at least FP got a Funny, even if'n I can't understand why.

But is it possible that some serious topics will evolve and develop in ways that justify discussions that extend longer than the one-day lifetime of a Slashdot story? Naw, that can't possibly be it.

Of course I shall now diverge. This time I'm wondering about the source of this vulnerability. So far I haven't spotted any insight into causes here on ye ancient Slashdot of olde. And I think I'd be at risk of a heart attack if I saw something that might be a constructive solution here.

So what's the Subject about? I'm wondering how many of the recent vulnerabilities were discovered with AI tools, perhaps virtually flying swarms of virtual chaos monkeys over and through the code and systems.

(You'll probably be relieved to know that there is no real relationship to the book Chaos Monkeys by Antonio Martinez, where the term is just used to justify a cute drawing of a monkey on the cover. That and the eye-catching orange cover must explain the claim of "bestseller" since the real pitch should be "Facebook" which is barely mentioned on the back cover. Mostly reading it for the yuks and yucks.)

Was there a point to that?

Hmmm. Unlike a totally serious AC like you.

Yet you don't bother explaining how I am supposedly misrepresenting you. You have never actually said what was supposedly creatively snipped by me to change the meaning of what you wrote and how it does so.

Sigh. And around and around we go. Once gain, the interpretations and claims I make are not the same s the actual quote. I did not alter the quote in any way that removed context or meaning. My interpretation does not have to agree with you. I honestly represented what you actually wrote.

If party A is the council and B is the President, and C is Congress, how can what you are saying there be consistent with your original claim that the board is "there to help the President provide a proposal to Congress" and that the board "...once the President make's [sic] the call..." is "obligated to help with that direction."

You don't seem to be able to keep what you are even claiming straight, so we keep going around and around pointlessly. Your original claim was essentially that the board should advise the President but that, once the President had made a decision, the board would then need to adjust their advice to Congress based on the President's direction. Now are you reversing that and saying I was right all along?

I do not keep omitting it, you're just flat out playing pretend at this point.

For the rest of that, you seem to be implying that the board directly proposes a budget to Congress? This is a new claim. You know that's not how it works, right?

In other words, you're a coward and an idiot.

I am not conflating it with budgetary spending. Leeway in how to spend money is simply one of the pieces of authority that Congress can delegate. As for your claim that, if the authority is to be limited, Congress seems to say so, do you think that Congress has to say so before the fact? They are totally empowered to take back any of their own authority they have delegated in the past because delegation does not mean that you give up authority. That's why it is called delegation and not a surrender or gift.

I don't think I'm the one with the reading comprehension issues if we've gotten this far down the thread and you're just getting here now.

This is quite obviously actually a case of the executive trying to usurp legislative authority. The widely disputed reasoning in a couple of recent Supreme Court cases from the shadow docket do not change that.

Quite simply not true. The function of the Executive is to carry out the laws enacted by Congress. The direction of the work product of the Executive is decided by Congress. The role of the executive is supposed to be to handle the practical aspects of heading in that direction.

As an example, take Kennedy's speech on how the US had to go to the moon. In it, he explicitly said:

"Let it be clear—and this is a judgment which the Members of the Congress must finally make—let it be clear that I am asking the Congress and the country to accept a firm commitment to a new course of action."

So, the President did ask Congress for a direction, and Congress approved it. But the direction of the work product of the executive - in that case, the Apollo program - was absolutely something that Congress not only had a say in, but had absolute control over. If they had voted not to go to the moon, the direction of the executive's work product would have been something else.

Just more abject nonsense from you. You make claims, but can't back them up in the slightest.

There were plenty of very credible reasons to doubt it and lots of motive for lying in the first place. I admit that maybe I am not giving teenage script kiddies who call themselves things like "Big Balls" and are affiliated with cybercrime groups and white supremacist organizations the benefit of the doubt. Must be my personal biases against complete unqualified people doing professional work.

That's a nice quote. Where did it come from?

While it is true that, if you divide things up by political party affiliation, 95% of Democrats have an unfavorable opinion of him, since 56% of the overall population has an unfavorable view of him and only 33% have a favorable view, it's clearly not just left wingers who don't like the guy. Considering that there is no other recorded incident in either Rebuplican or Democrat administrations of one cabinet member giving another cabinet member a black eye in recorded history other than the black eye that Musk originally claimed came from his toddler son, but turned out to be from Bessent, it does appear that there are Republicans who don't like the guy either. As it turns out, even outside of politics, a lot of people who end up around Musk, but are not forced into some sort of position of subservience to him end up really disliking him or at least having a hard time finding a way to like him.

Regarding Musk:

"...the man who has lost his mind..." "train wreck" "completely off the rails" --Donald Trump

"The principles of DOGE were very popular... Elon was not" --Scott Bessent

"Pathetic man-child" --Vivian Musk, one of his children.

"Spoilt Child" -- Errol Musk, his father. Of course Musk has said his father has done "almost every evil thing you can possibly think of"

"his gift is not empathy" --Kimball Musk, his brother

"terrified of his own cousin" is the way that a Twitter executive described James Musk, a cousin after finding him apparently sobbing.

"Jekyll-and-Hyde" -- Tosca Musk, his sister, describing his personality.

"Odd, odd Duck" -- Susie Wiles, White House chief of staff.

"I have been in the same room with Elon, and he always tries to be funny. And he's not funny. Like, at all." most irritating person I've ever had to deal with." -- Anonymous senior officials

"...holding the children hostage..." -- Grimes, mother of some of his children.

All of the evidence seems to suggest that it doesn't take a "sad echo chamber" to find Musk unlikable, it just takes being around him.

It is having fewer managers with larger teams so that managing from the top has less direct and indirect reports.

Agile has a 25+ year run since 2000. Object oriented has a 35 year run.

Business consulting firms - Gartner, Forrester, and such need a new "silver bullet" program, strategy, plan,.... to sell to upper management.

The newspaper did not try to association fallacy Mexico City's willful pumping out all if its groundwater to global warming for at least 7 paragraphs.

The media just cannot help itself, that new must somehow always link natural resource misuse (over-[umping of ground water for 100 years) to global warming.

"According to Nasa, the technology is also capable of monitoring the climate crisis, glacier sliding, agricultural productivity, soil moisture, forestry, coastal flooding and more."