In the industry, so many security teams mandating CVE management software that is absolutely stupid and pushes off all the hard bits to the user.

It sees 6.12.0-211.34.1.el10_2... Well... none of that makes sense so it just assumes that it's just plain 6.12.0 and demands the user reconcile the reality. Now the security vendor *could* maybe integrate with the major linux distributions advisories... But no, more CVEs is better, when you demo that your product finds hundreds of CVEs, that just proves it is being thorough as far as upper management is concerned.

They offer up sound guidance here, skip direct CVE management and lean on your distributor. If you are doing CVEs direct, at *least* use the patched files to cross-reference against your build to see if it even in theory could matter. However the problem is the business of the security industry doesn't prioritize those, and so we have stupid tools inflicted on people, and pushing back against those tools carries a stink of "must not care about security then".

Depends on the number of realistically 'false positives'.

I've known a few people who find the kernel CVEs particularly unreasonable as they tend to aggressively assume security implications. If they grant a CVE to a 'mere bug', no one is going to get too grumpy over that specific item. If someone believes they have a vulnerability and do not see a CVE, then people get riled up. So some feel the kernel is just granting CVEs to avoid pushing back.

The other headache is the monolithic nature of the project. "Linux" covers just everything. A potential security issue in a device never seen outside of PA-RISC systems 20 years ago? It's a "Linux" issue, so every x86 system will be flagged as 'affected' by security software that cannot deal with nuance

Of course, we are here mainly because the kernel team largely recognizes the practice of trying to apply only security updates while avoiding 'only bug' fixes as pretty insane. So err on the side of caution make CVEs extra unmanageable because realistically it was a pretty crappy strategy for such a complex project anyway.

Broadly speaking, CVEs are usually pretty bogus, but a small percentage are very real and critical issues. You can't use the 'score' to really measure this either, it's not very good in the first place, and for example I saw the exact same issue in a C library and a python binding for that C library, and for whatever reason they graded the C library as 'minor' and python binding for that library 'critical', despite the python binding being nothing but a ctypes wrapper around the c library...

You expect very slop happy software developers to create effective safeguards?

I /suspect/ it's so when you have to upload a file to a website as a PDF but you have several and it doesn't handle that well you can multi-select a group of files and it will upload a single PDF.

No idea if that's what they mean but it might actually be useful.

I mean, that much coffee and they're probably pooping waaaay more often, and not many people are able to keep eating in the process of that. So maybe they'll lose weight and improve their heart health correspondingly?

Wait 'till they hear about what's being stored at 2300 Empire Ave.

Though it's pretty clear that Hollywood is in self-destruct mode at this point so it's hard to blame the property owners when the economy is headed towards only making weapons and lattes.

Too bad The Message has shifted the business climate towards death merchants.

By time October comes around there may be new demand for the microwave pyrolysis methods of reducing plastics to petroleum feedstocks.

If the editors here are to be believed California has so much solar power and plastic waste that they don't know what to do with and gasoline is already approaching $8 there due to the foolish wars and foolish taxation.

IIRC the heavy plastic chains could help with the disastrous heavy crude shortage, especially. Chemical engineers, please correct.

Nothing you said precludes a bubble pop and investment problem, even if taken at face value. The fact that you are getting rate limited doesn't mean there isn't a bubble. That doesn't speak to the economics, how the demand is distributed, and whether or not that demand is durable as hype levels out.

As the post said, there may be "right" AI companies but there are certainly "wrong" AI companies and investors don't really know which is which and trillions of dollars are at stake with what will turn out to be the wrong companies. Some of the "wrong" AI companies are just stuff on top of the same provider you are using, so you are rate limited because they are also selling to less robust companies and when that less robust company goes poof, your rate limiting concerns may go away. Or your org is one of the less robust companies.

In the year 2000, plenty of folks got real strong value of the internet. But the bubble still popped and the markets dropped 40%. Hosting providers that were hugely constrained by the overwhelming demand at the time suddenly had capacity to spare. People continued to get value from the internet, but that was of little solace to folks whose livelihood was tied to one of the "wrong" internet companies of the day.

For some, *maybe*, but keep in mind:

I have met a fair number of folks making $200k+ who were supremely underwhelming. They would have a very narrow wheelhouse and *only* do things within that, single language, single framework, stuff like that. Even then, you ask them to do something that they can't find an example of online already and they would be lost. We had a scenario where work hired a few of these folks to replace the front-end work that our 'full stack' team had been doing, because we had more money and we should develop it 'properly'. They started from scratch, had a fairly basic tutorial-fodder front end and customers complained about loss of features and the front-end team rejected as "impossible with new framework, so won't be done". Meaning they couldn't find anyone who did that on stack overflow, and the old UI wasn't written with Angular so they decided it was not applicable. AI may well supersede such folks fine.

For a fair number of these companies, if the realization comes that AI couldn't replace the personnel they thought it could, then the bubble is likely popping and taking some of these companies with it. If not completely, having to scale back offerings. AI isn't going away, so the people in the above example can't celebrate too much, but the realization that it won't replace the entirety of white-collar work will be crushing financially.

Even assuming they can and want the talent back, they may see their position as strong with all those other unemployed/underemployed developers out there, so they may not relent to an exorbitant consultant rate. It *can* work and work long term if things line up right. For example they begrudgingly get gouged on what they think is short term then realize they can't just bandaid it and let the consultant go. But it's far from guaranteed.

Sure, if someone is in their fifties and has spent their career at $200k+, then your perspective carries weight, one might reasonably expect such a person to be able to retire or at least not sweat a big drop in pay. "Silicon Valley" standard of living may screw the numbers up (I explicitly declined an offer because I checked the real estate market and realized just how deep a cut I'd take in standard of living despite the "raise")

However, if someone graduated with their CompSci degree in 2022, well, all they built is probably a lot of student debt with nothing to show for it.

Note that companies find recent hires the "safest" to fire because they likely haven't become important in ways management doesn't understand.

Where do you think we are, in some foreign land in the future?

I've learned not to expect much out of Aptera, they've been at this two decades of "just about to launch" and never getting anywhere.

That said, if something did charge at 5mph from integrated solar, well that's on par with level 1 EV charging and some folks get by on that. So going to work and parking in the parking lot might get the morning commute replenished over the day, maybe some of the return trip. For some lightly driven vehicles, they might almost never plug in, in that hypothetical.

Yup, there's also the time factor.

There's an important study of boys at age six being diagnosed with ADHD.

At 6 yrs 1 month the odds are 50% higher than at 6 yrs 11 months.

Because they're both "age 6" but in boys that year is huge in development and all metrics are against the age-appropriate standard.

If you're on WoW or Roblox all your waking hours you will have retarded development vs. somebody who is in the world.

So you'll be more ADHD for a 15 yr old if you mostly miss age 14.

"Trust the experts" and sheet.

Nobody is that "stupid" in those departments.

The question should be what was the quid pro quo?

We can imagine what the PLA got out of it but what favor did Microsoft get?

And how high up the chain did it go? Who specifically approved the arrangement?

At least Microsoft probably has Windows 11 "backups" of the hard drives of anyone who might think of bringing charges.

Not sure if that strategy can be called stupid. Lots of other words apply.

"One Nation Under Blackmail" is a popular phrase.

Used to be that automatics shifted poorly, had fewer gears, losses to make it less fuel efficient, and higher maintenance.

Now they shift well (if they "shift" at all, CVT and single speed EV transmissions), let the operator manual shift all they want, and between more gear ratios and better tech all around, they are more efficient. They will tend to out last a typical human operator clutch nowadays too.

I still love driving stick, but I must confess there's no good practical defense any more.