Here you go. Is there anything else I can help you with?

You don't understand the problem. You can't understand it from the report (I can't understand it from the report either), because the report doesn't explain it. Your mind tried to fill in the blanks, but it shouldn't have.

It's your fault you didn't proofread in the preview stage. Blaming others is the root of all your problems.

Why do you have so much tedious grunt work? Haven't you learned how to use a function?

Hezbollah is gone. Assad is gone. Hamas is gone. Houthis are on their way out.

It's not a proxy war. Iran has lost all its proxies. Israel is attacking it directly.

AI is the death of the search engine. It allows SEO leeches to build websites too easily, that appear informative and match all of Google's requirements to be voted up.

This is in particular a problem because the SEO websites built by AI are often wrong. At least with a handmade SEO website like Wirecutter, the information is mediocre, but real. With the new AI-SEO, reality has nothing to do with it.

Don't worry about it.

LLMs don't provide 100% code coverage when writing tests (and probably can't)

Kind of hilarious that they passive-aggressively blame "business requirements" for the problem:

No it's not lol.

Your sentence doesn't make sense, it's not grammatical. Furthermore the problem was not abrupt: the code was merged in May, the outage was in June.

The report is bad.

I notice some strange moderation efforts on a number of posts, almost as if someone wants negative views of Fox (and other right-wing media outlets) to be suppressed.

It's also evident that somebody with mod points doesn't realize that the existence of a biased FOX outlet means that folks can't also know that there are media outlets that are biased to the left. No, I think people aware of the misinformation/biases are well aware that there are biased media outlets on either side. At least I'd like to think so.

Though, we could talk about degrees of bias and hash that out. It is my *opinion* that FOX is more likely to give false/biased information than the other media outlets but I have pretty limited exposure. So, we can largely discount my views about the severity of the matter. The only news I really pay attention to is the local news and I don't even pay much attention to that. If it's important enough, someone will tell me about it.

A long time ago, I was a poor college student. One of the things I did to fund my life was freelance journalism (which was really just selling stories to a few local sources and hoping stuff went out of the wire and was picked up elsewhere).

So, I got the job and then decided to learn about journalism. One of the things I learned was that I should never use words like 'I", "me", "myself", or even things like "this reporter". This was a solid 40+ years ago.

Anyhow, as you can see, that has changed quite a bit. We also accept this crazy notion that 'anybody can be a journalist'. I mean, sure, they could be - but it should require integrity, honesty, accuracy, and be as unbiased as one reasonably can. There are also people who think that 'every side' should be presented. In reality, it's fine to be biased against things like Nazis and you don't have to give time or voices to those people who think otherwise.

It's not a moral panic.
People like having someone to pick on (because it means they aren't being picked on themselves).

Three more years.

The article is written in a way to CYA of the people involved. It spreads the blame around without being too specific, so no one knows what was going on. For example, it talks about "the null pointer" but that's the only mention of it. At best that doesn't make sense gramatically.

They also talk about "This policy data contained unintended blank fields" but leave it at that. Why did it contain unintended blank fields? How did they get in there? It doesn't say. Is it a problem? Are they hand-writing this policy data?

Are they going to take measures to ensure that the "unintended blank fields" don't happen again? No, they are not; based on what is written in their document.

Was the report written by AI? It's probably too short and concise, but the grammar and disconnectedness makes it feel that way.

Yeah, this isn't anything new. It's a link with a UUID embedded in it and confirms that the email address is a real one and an active one. Unsubscribing using their link is a bad idea and has been a bad idea for *decades*. Just mark it as spam and move on. The potential for the link to contain malware is nothing new.

I'm not sure that I agree with sending them to the new prison in El Salvador. That place is inhumane. As much as I hate spammers, I do think we need to treat criminals with a degree of humanity.