I hope nobody's complaining that it got publicly disclosed because "they only had two and a half years to fix it but hadn't gotten around to it yet"
IMO, "responsible disclosure" taps out after six months. Anything that happens after that is entirely on the devs for not bothering to plug holes that they were privately notified about.
does anyone (govt etc) have back-door access to it?
It seems that lately governments are "insisting" on back-doors into user-encryption, going so far as to bar sales of products to their citizens that they can't just look at anytime they feel like it.
We need to read your texts to stop Terrorism! and Think of the Children!
Jensen Huang to college grads: "Run. Don't walk" toward AI
https://www.axios.com/2026/05/...
Nvidia founder and CEO Jensen Huang told graduates at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh yesterday that demand for AI infrastructure is creating a "once-in-a-generation opportunity to reindustrialize America and restore the nation's capacity to build."
Why it matters: With many college grads fearing AI could obliterate their career dreams, Huang pointed to boundless opportunity as a "new industry is being born. A new era of science and discovery is beginning
Nvidia, which makes AI chips, is the world's most valuable company. Huang told 5,800 recipients of undergraduate and graduate degrees that the AI buildout will require plumbers, electricians, ironworkers, and builders for chip factories, data centers and advanced manufacturing facilities.
"No generation has entered the world with more powerful tools â" or greater opportunities â" than you," he said. "We are all standing at the same starting line. This is your moment to help shape what comes next. So run. Don't walk."
"Every major technological revolution in history created fear alongside opportunity," Huang added. "When society engages technology openly, responsibly, and optimistically, we expand human potential far more than we diminish it."
Full speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Obligatory Money Pit reference...
https://youtu.be/lJhHjACjJjA
No, it's more about how teams work. Teams have a scope. They don't typically go beyond that scope. So if my team owns the Foo and Bar modules, I work on those. But if there's little important work on Foo and Bar, but a lot of important work to be done on Baz, it's generally organizationally difficult for us to work on Baz. Typically we need to be lent out by our manager and seconded to the other team. Which can be a lot of red tape and politics.
Now if you're imagining some alternate world where programmers an be moved at will- then we're already one big team instead of multiple small teams.
And no, a smaller team doesn't win every time. If it did, then then smallest team possible is teams of 1 and we'd all do that. There are sweet spots, which depend on the organization, the work to be done, and the importance of that work. For some that's bigger, for some smaller. I've definitely worked on teams that were both too small for the work, and that were too big.
They can, under some circumstances. If the scope of what they work on is too small to fill the team's feature set. Or if the work they would be doing is significantly less important than other work to be done, having them in one large team makes it easier to move to more important work and can get critical features built faster. In that case it may not be overall more work done, but it may move the important stuff quicker. If larger teams weren't useful on some level, we wouldn't have teams at all- we'd all be individuals.
They're one of the 4 biggest stock brokers in the US. If you aren't trolling, you're showing yourself to be really ignorant.
In the end- good engineers with sufficient experience and support will get stuff working with any methodology. Bad ones or ones insufficiently supported will fail with any methodology.
There are some things that agile works well for, but it's really limited to domains where you can quickly build something tangible for feedback and you have stakeholders willing and able to give frequent feedback. UIs are a good example. It's a horrible fit for anything that requires actual research, or that can't be shown to low technical knowledge customers frequently (in other words anything that actually needs weeks or months of backend work, algorithm writing, or infrastructure to be written).
The problem with that is the skills needed to manage and the skills needed to do real work (let's take programming as an example) are pretty distinct. Someone can have both, but they tend to have one or the other. Forcing those without the skills to do the practical work into doing it doesn't actually help the team, it just slows everyone down. And if they get on the critical path of any project you can be royally fucked.
There are a couple of ways to solve this problem:
1)Larger team sizes. This can work if the team owns enough to keep everyone busy, but it can lead to effectively being independent subteams calling themselves one team while being inconvenienced by each other.
2)Each manager managing multiple independent teams. This can work if it doesn't overload the manager. The biggest problem is when the manager decides one team is more important and doesn't support the other(s) enough. This works better the closer the teams are, as it requires the manager to know fewer sets of collaborators and politics
Yes a bit OT but I remember the one-liner contests the magazines would have. You had to not use any unnecessary spaces, single-letter variables, use any command shortening method (like "?" instead of "print") and other tricks to get as much function as possible out of the ~253 bytes of line space available. Amazing what some people could squeeze onto one line of BASIC! (games were the most popular, though graphics displays were frequently featured)
It was pretty normal for those "one-liners" to take up a third of the screen or more when LIST'ed
Back in the day most of the computer magazines had one of those. I think it was Nibble magazine that published several programs for the Apple ][.
IIRC you'd start the program in the background and it would watch what line your cursor was on and display a two digit checksum in the upper right corner of the screen that would update as you typed. Just make sure that number matched the check on the end of the line in the magazine and you were clear to hit Return to save the line.
A different magazine had a similar method, but I believe it provided line-by-line checksums after you were done entering the program, and would also generate a "program checksum" at the end that would match if all lines were correct.
I also remember several occasions where there was a printing problem in the magazine and everyone's checksum was wrong, they'd publish a correction in next month's edition and everyone would cry "THAT'S why I couldn't get it right!" (probably after receiving hundreds of letters in the mail complaining about hours of frustration trying to key it in!) This was frequently due to the magazine omitting a line of code. (all the line checksums matched, but not the total at the bottom)
ahh the good ol days of Human OCR....
modern OCR software struggled with the quality of the decades-old printout.
I'm amazed we can OCR in Egyptian scrolls on papyrus, but struggle with 30 year old green-bar printouts?
I get sick after 10 minutes last time I tried it (a few years ago). It's not anywhere near solved. Of course I have no desire to try the new versions, because even if it was solved it doesn't actually make anything useful better.
This will wreck some customers. Expats overseas without vpn access. Anyone working or living in a remote location without internet access. Military around the world, both on land and on sea. Maritime workers on ships.
Basically take a bunch of people who rely on gaming devices for their entertainment because of the remote nature of their job or home, and cut off access to stuff they already paid for. Well thought out plan, if the plan is to get people to switch to a different company's products.
...like "Tell me about Tiananmen Square" or "Tell me about Xinjiang".
Is this what you want for the future?
My thoughts back when R1 came out:
FORTRAN is for pipe stress freaks and crystallography weenies.
