I give a coding interview to determine, "Can this candidate get the computer to do what they want?" Coding problems are a quick way of determining that. Of course, I could give them a month long task and see if they can complete that, but no one will tolerate that.

If a person can't manage to give reasonable, logical instructions to a computer, the LLM isn't going to help.

"Clearing the neighborhood" ought to include also the possibility of two planets in the same orbit on opposite sides of the sun. In any case I was hoping to start good conversation and I think I succeeded.

There are multiple proposed definitions for "clear the neighborhood.'

And it turns out that your logic is better than the IAU, also.

That's what happens when you get a dwarf boat.

That is interesting. It seems to imply that organic matter from Earth would also land on our moon, just with a much smaller probability.

You mean Trump?

Usually he wears pants.

False. Asshole.

You are wrong, but even if you are right, my logic is still better than the IAU, since not even Earth, Jupiter, or Neptune have completely cleared their orbit.

A) You are an asshole.

B) Absolutely false.

C) You tried to deflect from my main point by attacking a strawman, which makes it seem like you don't even understand 4th grade logic. Next time address the main point: UEFI was not designed with security as a priority, which invites security bugs in the implementation. They are almost impossible to avoid.

UEFI is not secure, and you are trying to play logic games to avoid that fact. The systems you design are probably all insecure, because demonstrably you can't use logic.

A dwarf planet is a subclass of planet.

UEFI was not designed with security as a priority (that is, in UEFI, security is an advertising point, not a security point). Compare the design methodology to OpenBSD software.

The result is that there are guaranteed to be other high severity vulnerabilities, not yet found, in UEFI. Your network/system design should take that into consideration, and not rely on UEFI being secure.

If your system does rely on EUFI being secure, then it's not secure.

Good point.

But if any two issues are related in some way, I would suggest that by force, those issues have more than one dimension.

Oh, along those lines, it's well reported that Hyundai used systemd in recent models of their Tuscon braking system, Samsung used systemd in the Galaxy Note 7, that Toyota used systemd in their 2009-2011 accelerator systems. In addition, GM is rumored to be using system in their recent models of Cadillac, Chevy, and GMC; especially in the braking system.

Systemd makes an explosion everywhere it is used. It keeps the old rust off the tires.

Because it is a tool aimed at distro builders. It does the things they want. That doesn't mean it's good design, and it doesn't follow the Unix way.

Lennart Poettering kissed distro builder's asses until they included his tool. Once he got it in, he did whatever he wanted.

Literally every monolith ever is a collection of smaller parts.

Your example proves you don't understand monoliths. For example, it is perfectly possible to use Google Maps without using Google search, even though they are both part of the same monolith. "using" and "not using" aren't what determine a monolith. What determines a monolith is improper separation of concerns, and that is a design mistake made by systemd.

Systemd is a monolith.