Yes to both questions about people, but both are engineers. I do not think technical illiteracy is getting larger. It was always very large, with brief periods where more people had basic knowledge about some specific tech as the alternative was simply no or no meaningful access to that technology.

It is bot historically and currently true that most people are incompetent and suck at risk management.

By far not "every possible", but enough to massively increase the pool of attackers with a newly discovered vulnerability. And since most software is missing redundant security (because most software does not qualify as a product of professional engineering) this is far too easy. All engineering disciplines had to eventually accept that the thing that protects you is redundancy, because mistakes cannot be brough down enough. IT is not there at all, but it will not have a choice now.

There is. You read the standard, you implement the standard. And then you do an once-over over all time zones each year to check which standard they are following and if and when they are switching. Probably less than one competent engineer. But apparently, either MS does not have competent engineers or does not want to spend money on this. And hence they have a ton of egg on their faces. Again.

So? My comment was specifically about LLMs.

And that is how you do it if you have a clue. Not even expensive, just requires understanding.

It seems MS is regressing and getting worse and worse.

Apparently you did not understand what I wrote. Perfect code is NOT the goal. Redundant security is.

Yes. While I am still not impressed with the actual capabilities, the kicker at this time is the financial angle, in several dimensions. One is token cost. Another is that apparently nobody finds real revenue increases from LLM use. And even another, a bit more distant, is the cost for users to be able to switch providers (which is a regulatory requirement in some industries, at least in Europe).

On the plus-side, people that attack computer systems will likely be able to run their own local models as the task is very specialized and that will (hopefully) drag the software industry (kicking and screaming) to what all well established industries do: Redundancy to ensure properties even when something goes wrong.

That is why I am currently using it for that purpose.

May I suggest a few more names?
"Breadless bakeries" - They surely generate enough heat
"Sound distribution centers" - Apparently, these are really loud
"Landscape heaters" - See above
"Silicon stress test facilities" - Nothing wrong with testing stuff, right?

Actually, monitoring the temperature and equipment status from a central location is useful. Adjusting the temperature from a central location? Not so much. Firewall all critical infrastructure to be read-only, e.g. GET operations allowed, but not PUT.

Why do freezers need an internet connection? At the very least, it should be read-only to be used for monitoring temperature and raising an alarm at corporate when equipment fails. Of course, when the power to the freezer goes out, likely the power to the internet connection does to, so... maybe have actual human beings check the freezers several times a day?

Why not GMT? (I have relatives in Sierra Leone, which is on GMT. They call me at 4am and ask me, "Why aren't you up? It's noon!"

...are doomed to repeat it. Apparently the micro softies don't remember the Y2K panic.

And there you are wrong. There is a bit more to making a game than creating a demonstrator. The software also has to survive in the real world. And LLMs cannot give you that.