Correct. When I am driving my attention should be looking at the car in front, not peering at a display trying to find the menu item to change air-con fan speed. These screens are dangerous, you think that you will find what you want with a quick glance and suddenly realise that you have had your eyes off the road for 10 seconds - which at 70mph is over 200 yards.

I guess that BMW is now struck off the list when I next look for a car to buy; along with Tesla and others which are just computer screens with a vehicle attached.

My point was to stop a vendor saying that the product lifetime is 3 months and thus using this as a get out from having to provide updates over a reasonable period. Quite how long is another debate.

Also: this need not apply to all s/ware and all bugs equally. Some which, for example, can lead to a security failure exploitable from a remote location if more important than a local cosmetic issue. Deciding a classification is a bigger can of worms than it seems at first sight.

and s/ware vendors had to provide patches/... for free. Declaring a short product lifetime would not be allowed. Would we have better quality s/ware, written secure by design ?

To work Linus' Law needs many eyeballs, unfortunately these are not always around. It seems that AI is helping - which is good. I assume/hope that the current deluge will abate once the current/historic CVEs get fixed and that the only new ones are for bugs in new code.

Make San Francisco happen. People will remember that you did a century later like FDR is associated with Golden Gate bridge, regardless of details at the time.

No, just... no. If others want to accuse you of AI sloppery because you use em-0dashes, let them be retards, or even better, call out their retardery. Don't change your writing style, and validate their stupidity.

To me it appears you've go an extreme definition of "meaningful". It you want to claim the effect will be small, I'll go along with you. If you want to claim it won't be present...why do you believe that? It appears to me to be an unreasonable claim.

Because scientists follow the evidence to draw conclusions, they sometimes say things that contradict the ideology. Climate change is a good example of this.

Well, actually Denver usually DOES have higher cancer rates. Attribution, however, is difficult. (It's probably not just altitude.)

Perhaps a wee bit offtopic, but that reminds me of how American Airlines retained the service mark "Something Special in the Air" - despite not using it in advertising since like 2000 or so - by having it on their website's fleet seat map page.

What do you mean? Denver has frequently been compared with some sea level city, and found to suffer more radiation damage. (The exact radiation damage found depends on the study.) Of course, it's hard to control for the amount of granite, etc. nearby, so they aren't strictly reliable studies, but they *have* been made.

Sorry, that's a bad argument. It may well be true, but any absorbed radiation will raise the temperature, and any raise in the temperature makes unusual chemical reactions more probable. So you need to argue that the factor is too trivial to be significant. This is probably true, but has never been demonstrated, and probably cannot be demonstrated. (I've seen claims that they're demonstrated the harmlessness, but the claims were always logically invalid.)

It has happened under both.

Considerably. Also wider spread.

That's when the real party starts.

We're screwed. How hard is still - to some degree - up to us.
Or so I at least hope.