So I'm an email guy from way back... Literally decades...

Nobody leaves ports 110 & 143 open & exposed anymore. Not just blocked by a firewall rule, the Dovecot daemon's themselves, properly configured, simply don't listen on non-secure ports anymore at all. It's dead technology. You get bit by this, you're just an idiot.

What I found amusing is the bit about modern Outlook vs. Legacy. Modern Outlook, even on your desktop, is a cloud play. You might think you have a local App. You don't. Modern Outlook can't handle a simple "Linux" username as an account. The user "bob@example.com" represented by a "bob" entry in /etc/password cannot be used by a modern Outlook client. It passes the domain to M$ cloud and converts it to "bob@example.com", which a local vanity Dovecot domain will reject. It's intentional... They have placed their cloud between your local App and the email server. You think you're running a local app, but they're hoovering up all your email in a proxy config.

T

You're so clever. I'm impressed. Except for the bit where the comment LITERALLY SAYS nested loop. Which sure suggests to me that inner loop being optimized is not done once. It's probably being done once per, I dunno, each outer loop iteration. And probably the method in which this nested loop exists is called more than once I suspect.

You wanna be all Mr. Smartypants and poo on all things AI, fine, go for it...but at least put some damn thought into it beyond the basic coder level of awareness AI is gonna replace soon enough...

Nobody wants to hear that, but it is, honestly about 90% true (always edge cases).

I use LLMs daily now; sometimes 3-4 in parallel on completely separate tasks. I *rarely* have to go in and fix the code it writes...especially if it's spec'ed with regression clauses that all pass. It took me a solid year to finally get myself trained to write enough detail to make it all work, but at this point...IT ALL WORKS.

If someone is blaming AI because all they get is garbage out, they REALLY do need to consider what's going in. Curate your templates over time; build them out, expand them to accommodate new lessons learned when they're learned. It *does* work...I promise.

I've been coding for 40 years...since I was in middle school. Had my first contracts in late 80s in high school...I've been around the block from assembly language to C to C++ to Ada to Java to, reluctantly, Python...from embedded firmware at the chip level to UIs written in Java and *everything* from databases and web servers and backend systems and mainframes in between. From contract work and permanent hire to running my own software business for 20 years... I've SEEN IT ALL. And this new paradigm is, literally, the biggest shift I've ever seen in my lifetime. It's truly making software fun again IMO.

If anybody is finding generated code has to be redone 80% of the time, then they're absolutely doing it wrong. I keep hearing type of statement over and over and I just don't get it. I'm using LLMs *daily* at this point. Usually working in parallel on 3 or 4 completely different tasks. I have to go in and tweak the code it writes, MAYBE, 5% of the time. At best. If you prompt properly, you get good, solid, well architected code. But you HAVE to tell it to do that (which is often made easier with prompt templates that you've curated over time to work well as a baseline).

I actually followed one of these yesterday about 10 miles north of the Gigafactory. No branding, odd shape, weird dull gold. The rear tires are large enough to fit a full size SUV. I almost pulled out in front of it because it was lumbering along below speed limit. But the WTF factor got me and I ended up stuck behind it.

Next time there will be QA testing...

T

Came here to say this. Not to you, of course...to the person you replied to.

He's basically telling us he's never done anything significant or productive himself without just coming out and saying it. Those that have understand every bit of what's being said here. Others just ask "what's the point?". Figure out which group you hang with and decide if that makes you happy or not.

Clustered FS and Objectstore are built on top of SAS, FCOE, iSCSI, NVMe-OF. You first have to solve the problem of packing thousands of storage devices within the signal integrity radius of the transport medium before you can start abstracting. For NVMe that radius is about 1.5 - 2 meters from the CPU socket. SAS about 5 meters. Not sure on FC, I presume a couple km.

Completely common. Like 70% of all servers sold include a RAID controller that can talk to NVMe devices. But there's a catch... They suck so badly, nobody buys the PCIe cables to connect the backplanes. The inside joke is the best way to slow down your NVMe drives is to attach them to a RAID controller. Most NVMe drives use 4 PCIe lanes. Broadcom's RAID chips let them have two lanes. Then the RAID controller connects to the CPU with 16 lanes. So the minute you exceed 8 drives (via a switched backplane), you have an intractable bottleneck.

The Broadcom 3xxx chip hit the wall first as it still did RAID partially on the controller CPU. The 4116 implemented RAID entirely in silicon, the 51xx chips took this further with a complete cache redesign, and actually ditches SAS/SATA entirely. It's NVMe only. But nobody has solved the PCIe lane bottleneck.

Via a PCIe switch backplane. They've been around for a while... Perhaps as far back as 2012...

I fully expect SAS4 to be the end... NVMe-OF will replace SAS, and the drives will plug into the crazy 800GbE switches that are available now. Not on the drawing board... Now.

T

Hear hear! These are well spoken facts.

And indeed here.

And surprisingly...here too.

For all its faults, I too find myself using it constantly. Mainly because it allows me the freedom to "try it and see" for certain design decisions or to apply a blanket refactoring to old code bases that no other refactoring tool could possibly do. Or to just crank out scripts that technically work and get you the parsed results you need but you'd never try to maintain beyond the immediate need.

Those, and others, are the reasons I still use it daily...increasingly so. I can have it bang out that script to do "whatever" is needed at the time (usually data analytics or dataset transforms or whatever). Scripts I might not have ever written on my own because it would just take too long and so instead of digging deeper into "whatever" at the time to cross check and validate assumptions, I might have just assumed.

This tooling allows me to do things I wouldn't have before. It allows me to try patterns and see how they play out without any real fear of wasting my time because it's being done FAR quicker than I would have. And in the end, I have a set of options to consider rather than just picking something up front and pushing through the grind to make it the chosen way.

But pointing it to a bug and blindly submitting that trash output...ZERO chance. Even if it works, and honestly, often it does, it's almost ALWAYS complete trash code. I can bound that trash output with more specific prompts, yes. And this does work reasonably well...but you pretty quickly get to a point where you've spent about as much time crafting those fancy prompts in that case as you might have spent just writing the code yourself.

The more specific and structured you want the output, the longer it takes to get it. It can be fast or right, but not both.

I got my hands on a 3B1 around 1990. Linux wasn't available of course, and a used Sun was just out of my reach. It was a giant box of suck. The most corporate version of Unix I've ever used. It made me pine away for the dialup guest account on Compupro's Unix Version 7 system in the east SF Bay back in the 80's...

Eventually I picked up a Sun 3/50, and later a 3/60. Then some kid in Finland posted on Usenet and well...

Are you talking about CVE? Looking back it seems like it but if so, you might be on the wrong forum here. For reference, they did define these terms.

National Vulnerability Database (NVD)
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency's (CISA)
Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV)

Which I think is fair. But they didn't bother with NIST (I assume you did know that one) or CVE cause, I dunno, they're pretty damn common place...certainly on this site. There's a point where you can assume people in your audience know some level of detail about the topic you're presenting to them. And CVE, in my opinion (IMO), certainly fits that.

Or force them to keep their constellations lower, which means the satellites have to carry more fuel to fight drag, but if they fail they'll just deorbit in a few years. You can go a bit lower and use air-breathing ion thrusters as well, and those will deorbit even faster.

The big danger is the stuff in higher orbits that takes 100-1000 years to come down.

I mean, a small online bookstore pivoted to become one of the most foundational structural elements of the internet.

Funding via pay per view? There's an Idiocracy joke in there somewhere...