...requires age verification on traffic coming from known VPN addresses

A state enacting such a law should be required to publish their official list of The Known VPN Addresses.

People running websites should not be required to make up that data, or have to pay to subscribe to someone else who makes it up. If the gummint wants to force something that ridiculous on us, the gummint should make the taxpayers, not the webmasters or their users, pay for it.

So I guess a supply chain attack now needs to flag the version bump as 'security' then.

I do have to admit I am enjoying the random videos on the best way to quickly cut 2' aluminum pipe flooding social media lately.

No one can hear the failure of their consumer platform business over the massive flow of money for their cloud and office businesses.

If they shrugged and canned the entire Xbox and Windows things entirely, that's less than 9% of their revenue, and likely an even tinier portion of their profit. They would probably also lose all their consumer Microsoft 365 except people who never check and cancel subscription services, but that's probably similarly tiny in the scheme of the business.

You basically have a story of robust cloud revenue and also as I understand some 'rotation' in the market as investors decide that the AI darlings are probably going to be already as high as they can get for a while, and it's time to cash in and switch to other companies that either seem plausible for share price growth or at *least* actually profitable today with dividends and/or stock buybacks. So the viable quarter came at just the right time to catch investors looking to cash out of their big AI investments for the short term.

But maybe they have?

Windows+Xbox was less than 10% of their revenue. They note it is in decline and looking at the bulk of the revenue, not much of it seems vulnerable to people just not caring about Windows. Their cloud business is the bulk of their business and it is not particularly sensitive to OS selection on desktops.

One might argue that Microsoft 365 is at least in part tied to the Windows platform, but in my experience non-Windows businesses still buy into it, even if their users are largely relegated to browser based access only. At this point they have businesses so scared of not having it, they would have it even if they were just phones and ipads. You *never* want to risk a customer or partner sending you some office document that can't be read, and whether or not other options are actually capable hardly matters in the face of the *impression* that anything less than Microsoft is a risk.

The biggest unknown that I think would be sensitive would be the 'consumer cloud' portion of Microsoft 365. That's going to be mostly people who clicked through the Windows built-in advertising for using Microsoft 365 as storage and backup for their laptop and add-on software from device sales that prod users to up-sell to Office. The release doesn't make it clear what the absolute number there is, but I seem to recall hearing that's actually a pretty small number too.

Microsoft is primarily a cloud and Office company now, and I'm wagering the markets have largely already accepted that.

They have steering wheels.

Yeah, LLM is tricky since sounding correct is the priority, and being correct is a side effect of sounding correct.

Business executive style behavior.

I'm not confusing anything. I'm saying you are applying a rather picky definition of 'cost' to disagree with the assertion that 'using fewer tokens is a strategy being used to reduce AI cost'. The assertion makes sense so long as you don't get very weird about limiting the definition of 'cost'

Code analysis is a bit more unambiguous in terms of value, as long as the findings aren't taken *too* seriously. It has impossible attention span and can spot real issues, or failing that a mistaken issue can highlight something 'off' and inspire a true finding. It will also indicate lots of false positives, but at least the consequences can be limited to wasting your time so long as you take care to analyze.

The code gen is a bit more harrowing since it requires human vigilance to correct the problems in ways that humans are just not good at (the AI makes output that *looks* right, and you have to be really used to people lying about what they think they know to not give such output the benefit of the doubt.

In theory, same way they know the submitted code wasn't ripped of from the contributor's closed-source employer without authorization: they don't.

You can still have a policy to enforce, and in the cases where it is blatantly obvious, then it's easy.

In practice, nothing they can do to police the more subtle scenarios if the contributor flagrantly works to fool the policy. Except ban future contributions if they attempt to submit without disclosure and are caught.

So far the plaintiffs have tried going after the providers, and so far the providers have successfully claimed they aren't to blame, but have asserted that it can happen but that if it happens, it's the user who is liable.

So it hasn't come up yet, but it does seem like a company could come out of nowhere and hit you up for infringement because the model generated too-similar a copy. Despite not knowing, you still are on the hook, at least by the logic of the so far successful defense asserted by the AI companies.

Yes, the open source world really gets the short end of the stick in all sorts of way with GenAI.

You want to use an open source project but don't want to incur copyleft or even attribution? Launder it through CodeGen!

Your project has even two or three codegen fanatics? Congratulations, you now have inscrutable tickets and obnoxiously insistent pull requests that make no sense.

You have code unknowingly violating some closed source codebase? You can get hit out of nowhere, with no way of knowing you infringed.

Closed source code ripped off your codebase? Hard to know since you don't get that same visibility.

Yes, non-human code assuming that it does not itself violate any copyright does not earn copyright by itself. However, once combined with human output, the combined work is not exempted from copyright. So the 'no copyright' scenario would be no worse than pulling in code from public domain, the source may not be copyright, but the result after mixing it in would be. You also won't see companies even trying to argue that partial LLM content forfeits copyright for GPL, since the implications for proprietary code would be *far* worse given their near unanimous love of LLM code.

Your second point is the bigger gotcha, that an LLM generated copyright infringement can be a problem while every one actually involved can be genuinely oblivious. Even as an AI company has successfully defended themselves from being liable for infringing output, they essentially throw users under the bus by asserting that while infringement can happen and be facilitated by their models and services, it's the user's liability if that should happen and has nothing to do with their use of material for training and the resultant reality that the model *can* construct infringing copies of material in the training set.

Sadly, the second point is in practice waved away due to the assumption that the corpus of training material is almost entirely open source stuff, and while they do have copyright to respect, in practice they don't expect the open source projects to be resourced enough to detect and litigate infringement. In the "worst case" scenario, remedy is also likely to be easy because the courts will not recognize financial damages and the defendant could probably just LLM up a an alternative invocation, or 'shim' their way to isolate the code if copyleft, or simply credit the plaintiff if it's just BSD/MIT style. Long standing reality that violating open source copyright is "no big deal", only violating closed source copyright carries real risk. Some companies take the open source licenses seriously, but no company that has abused those licenses has faced anything vaguely significant in the way of consequences. I don't think anyone has been forced to copyleft their proprietary code due to a GPL violation by a court, at 'worst' they only have to correct the issue moving forward.

If it is cheaper, then it isn't the same cost. Yes, there are various ways to reduce cost and reducing the volume of work is only one of them. It doesn't work to accuse the article of being 'strange' for saying that using less of the services is cheaper. Because that is obviously one of the ways to be cheaper.

Could you please stop with the condescending tone of acting like people don't know about these things.

One, the severity score in many contexts does not matter because some security group thinks they are being extra secure by having a 'zero tolerance' policy, that the severity doesn't matter, no CVEs shall be detectable.

For another, the score is super subjective. Take CVE-2026-7210 and CVE-2026-41080. The exact same issue (one is in a C library, and one is tracking python wrapping that library). MITRE said the C library one was 2.9, but CISA-ADP said it was 7.5, and the python one was graded 6.3 (despite being the *exact* same issue as the C library was graded at 2.9). So between those two CVE numbers, the same issue is considered 2.9, 6.3, or 7.5, depending on who filled out the form. The score is by no means immune to the poor quality of the 'vulnerability' reports.