I know of their actions, actions speak volumes, they are both arseholes.

While that indeed paints Altman in a bad light, I don't see how it is relevant to the actual court case here apart from trying to paint him as a bad person (which obviously both he and musk are)

Clearly a sign you are completely out of touch with what is happening in the world. component shortages and prices have made new PC upgrades incredibly expensive. This isn't just happening for Windows PC's

There is lead time between sales, manufacturing and shipping. Their first half year sales for manufacturing have almost certainly finished so they will know exactly how many they will ship in the H1.

Not really ages, a week. mind you the article they are talking about is a week old and related to Microsoft Defender which is used by customers to monitor cloud servers, many of which are unsuprisingly linux. So while this slashdot article seems to try and imply it is MS pointing fingers, it is nothing of the sort. It is just a standard blog article warning its userbase of an at the time very serious vulnerability, why it is here a week later on slashdot is another question.

An IT admin can already do that if they have this level of access encrypted or not.

It is definitely a potential vector, albeit a low risk one and not one the majority have any need to be concerned over. HOWEVER, given they were one of the big pushers for secure storage and management of credentials this sets a horrible precedent and they should know better.

of course humans did no better. remembering all the LLM is doing is analysing human information to work out the most human guessed result, it isn't actually analysing races or horses itself.

My father was a bag man for bookies due to ebing able to do the maths instantly in his head. The one thing he learnt in all those years is the serious punters dont bet in big races like the derby as with most of them practically any horse has the potential to win and predicting the result is just to random for pro gamblers.

whether they like or dislike someone is irrelevant, whether they are able to set aside their like or dislike is what is relevant.

So in your view you can only have Jurors who don't have a negative view of one side or the other. Curious how you think any fucking Jury would be possible for a repeat child molester or murderer. I would posit that if they didn't have a negative view on someone like that they should not be on any jury.

If you had to not dislike someone to give them a fair trial then every child rapist, murder and other scumbags would walk free every day. You only have to show you can provide a view based on the facts not on whether you like the person.

They always tell what they consider their version of the truth.

It is actually very easy to spot, it is hard to prosecute. The analytics that go into the stock market nowadays make insider trading anomalies stick out like dogs balls.

you can use longer hostnames just fine. however a shortname will be generated for compatibility with older protocols if your hostname is longer than 15 chars.