As part of its successful "Debug" program, Google is tapping into its tech expertise to raise an army of sterile male mosquitoes to lower the number of illness-spreading bugs.
I spent all of two minutes looking, but I can't find any evidence this program has done anything yet. So it what sense is it "successful"?
Personally, I'm blaming the remote-working immigrants!
Not to mention that United Airlines is a private business, which means it's not just a question of what is legal anyway. United also has a fair bit of latitude in terms of what is considered acceptable behavior on the part of its customers (passengers).
From TFA:
We found a Red Hat employee's GitHub account was compromised and used to push malicious orphan commits directly to several repositories, bypassing code review entirely. Those orphan commits contained a workflow file (ci.yaml) and a script (_index.js).
That nugget really should've been in TFS.
Any time there is an unexplained phenomenon, it was alive and about to swallow everyone whole.
... or about to have babies.
... that modern system administrators will use when they want to tell their children scary stories. But this isn't a new problem, and the posited idea that before AI there was some "oral tradition" that rendered this a non-problem is laughable.
The past few years, I've had to deal with a lot of code + configuration files that are poorly documented or not documented at all. Some of them are occasionally commented... but often with references to non-existent entries in the team's wiki. I'm sure my predecessors MEANT to make those entries, but you know the saying about the road to Hell and all that...
Yes, when I look at these files I can usually determine what the particular person did. But, if I'm at the point where I'm looking for documentation, it's likely because *why* they chose to do it that particular way seems inexplicable.
and I can relive those heady days of my youth, playing Trek on a PDP-11/70 (and wasting copious amounts of tractor-feed paper)!
When autonomous agents can interact with each other globally, what could possibly go wrong?
Of course, that's something they can already do - this new project just proposes a new standardized framework for doing so.
Example, my 17 pro is pretty big and heavy, so you end up gripping it every time you pick it up. But with the extra buttons on the sides you end up engaging something you didn't want. So then you menu-dive into system settings just to turn off extra buttons.
This has been a problem ever since the iPhone 6, when Apple inexplicably decided to move the on/off/lock button from the top of the phone over to the right side, directly opposite the volume buttons.
That's gotta be one of the stupider things I've read about someone doing. Are you sure this guy wasn't from Florida?
Yeah, the twelve-year-old in me enjoyed the video very much! What a fireball!
Modern ads are basically websites so permissionless attacks don't even need you to visit a specific one, just some site that happens to show a bad ad.
In which case this, like so many others, becomes a Chrome-only problem.
They're not independent entities.
I think my wife's conversational topics might also work.
From the actual paper (emphasis mine):
After tricking the victim into clicking a malicious link, an attacker can monitor the victim’s activity on the host system, such as website visits and application usage, without further user interaction.
"Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberrys!" -- Monty Python and the Holy Grail
