As far as I can tell, Microsoft is not killing off CoPilot. In fact, I just (yesterday) got an email which included some new branding I've not noticed before:

"This invite was sent by Copilot on behalf of <my manager's name>"

This is the way the site ends
This is the way the site ends
This is the way the site ends
Not with a bang, but a whimper.

Oh man, right now I'm so glad my role changed a few years back. I used to have to also cover some web stuff, and people would frequently send me information stupidly-formatted in Word or in Excel (the weirdest one is how people would want an image updated, and they'd send it embedded in a Word document - a Word document containing only the photo).

I am certain people will now be pasting crap, probably unintentionally, into single cells - thanks to this new "feature". And poor web schlubs everywhere will have to waste lots of time trying to tease out the bits of data they actually need.

Whether or not one lives in the enterprise kernel world (I do as well), a glance at the mainstream kernel's changelog indicates we're all largely relying on those companies' employees. Most patches are coming from people who are paid by Red Hat et. al.

Minimally useful, but whatever.

Lots of keyboards ditched more useful keys to fit a copilot key, and then on top of that it's generally awkward to remap back to useful (commonly they replace a modifier key, and mapping some key to a modifier key is usually difficult). Even in KDE trying to make a shortcut out of it doesn't work because it doesn't recognize XF86Assistant,

Well, to me it's funny to hitch this finding to post quantum as it is a totally orthogonal concern.

Along with saying RSA is *totally* useless because a rather niche application of it has an evident weakness, that is not claimed to be more generally applicable.

They may have an interesting and important finding, but are stirring up a bigger mess than is warranted by implying a broader impact to anything using RSA.

If you weren't considering migration from RSA an urgent issue before, this changes nothing.

Depends on what they mean by "the" cryptosystem. If they mean use of RSA in general, then not really, it narrowly only applies to a specific application of RSA allowing an authority to sign something without actually seeing the something, which almost never is done. It sounds like it does not speak to RSA more broadly.

Thank goodness I was sitting down for THAT bit of news...