I'm already seeing bizarre corporate fallout from this - when a high value, highly paid individual "vibe codes" something that gets traction and then the executive team declares "now put it in production" and the legitimate questions are asked like "what are the requirements? how does it work? what are the dependencies? What are the SLAs supposed to be?" There are no answers, really. So then the slop has to be analyzed, almost reverse-engineered, and the execs get pissed because nobody knows the basic answers.

Even worse when asked "who will support it?" the answer is "well you will!" except that again, nobody knows how it works, and nobody wants to spend the time (read money) to figure it out. There's nearly never any documentation, and what documentation does exist is also slop and may or may not actually reflect the thing that was vibe coded.

So... yeah, the "AI" crash is going to, at some point, get very expensive on those who capitalized on the vibe coding trend, and very lucrative for people willing to clean up others shit. Vibe janitors, if you will.

The despair.com poster has it right:

CONSULTING
"If you're not a part of the solution, there's good money to be made in prolonging the problem."

Seems like an opportune time - google wants it gone, Netflix wants something to do 'cloud gaming.'

Agreed, which really just makes it bad writing due to semantics.

I'm a bit confused, if it's truly peer-to-peer, why are there servers involved that have seen their traffic rise "100,000%?"

Maybe this is real, maybe it's just trash writing by a non-technical writer (as it is on Vice after all).

I find it somewhat disappointing that someone from McKinsey, a firm known for grinding people into dust because of absolutely no respect for any time not dedicated to McKinsey is going to somehow bring any kind of positive morale to the company. Time to pivot to worse.com.

I remember when this was the response to anything that didn't toe the party line that M$ was evil.

Better. Almost all certificate renewals from a modern CA can be automated, old certificates get cycled out, new ones get cycled in. Apple's not actually the bad guy in this fight, in my opinion.

Also from my point of view, there's lower impact to the overall chain if an intermediate or root certificate is invalidated or worse, compromised, because while the number of issued certificates are higher, the process is more frequent.

I'd guess (but don't know) much of the pushback is from the older CAs that have not kept up with the times and are already losing ground to Let's Encrypt and the certificate managers run by cloud providers like AWS' Certificate Manager and Azure's App Service Certificates. It was the older CA's that originally pushed for a differential in the display of "extended verification" certificates, but nobody has really noticed that the "EV" portion has basically dropped out of the public view - which is fine, EV always seemed like a money grab to me by the CAs anyway.

Nah. They're going on the magazine 'forgot to cancel' model. The price point is irrelevant, the vulture behavior is the bigger deal.

It's like the American Ninja Warrior of critiques.

They're defending us from Space Nazis