JUDGE: The jury has sent a question and the answer is no, the death penalty is not "available for both sides" please return to the jury room and limit your consideration to civil damages.

JUDGE: No, a “light maiming” is also not acceptable, nor is “getting medieval on their asses.” Please constrain yourself to statutes approved by this court.

JUDGE: A further follow-up question from the jury, and no we cannot 'dunk them in a lake and let God decide, like they used to do with witches'. That has not been considered a valid means of determining guilt for several centuries at least.

JUDGE: The jury has sent another question and the answer, again, is no. "Excommunicado" is not real - that's only a thing in the John Wick universe. Civil penalties DO NOT encompass revoking all protections under the law for Mr Altman and Mr Musk.

JUDGE: Court reporter, please note that the jury's latest request, quote, can we let them hang by their thumbs for a few hours, end quote, is also denied.

There aren't a lot of AAA PC games these days and Sony's releases were some of the few we got and they were all the very high quality.

But this isn't because they're trying to be evil or anything they just aren't selling enough copies to justify the ports.

If the cost of a PS5 was low I could see that because people would just buy the PS5 and not bother with the PC version but with a PlayStation 5 pushing $700 for the base console that doesn't seems like it wouldn't be the case. I don't know the demographics though but the facts of the matter is they aren't selling enough units for anything except the Spider-Man games.

I would think that China has that access. I know of several large corporations and one smaller state that have this access.

What a dumb statement. If you are trying to defend the indefensible (Microsoft), try at least to sound a bit plausible.

So? The Linux kernel folks patched within hours or days. And these vulnerabilities are unlikely to crop up again. You are comparing apples and oranges. Also note that building a big, bloated KISS violation of a "kernel", as Microsoft does, certainly counts as "not caring about security". The only way to get good security in software, and even more so in kernels, is by simplicity. Microsoft certainly knows that. But raking in the dollars is far more important to them.

So ask yourself: Why are you defending Microsoft with invalid arguments?

There are also other master's degrees besides the clearly negative-value MBA. For example, you can get a STEM one.

This is also the users that tolerate this crap and ask for more, at least some of them. Yes, MS has no honor, integrity, decency or skill, but they are getting away with it because they do not get called out.

At this point, there is probably nothing that can rescue either Microsoft or Linux from the hordes at the wall. Both are performance-first operating systems. There's nothing surprising or unusual about that; this is the dominant paradigm. Windows NT made at least some attempt in the other direction until version 4, but then they prioritized UI latency over memory security. LLMs apparently don't have to be able to think to recognize patterns which indicate vulnerabilities. If having closed source is even still a benefit in hiding failures, it won't be for long.

On top of that, the hardware isn't secure enough either and both are going to have to be addressed to reasonably secure our systems from this new threat. They were never really secure, humans could find the same vulnerabilities, but there weren't enough humans looking. There's lots of compute hours being spent looking.

This isn't limited to Windows and Linux, every vaguely common system has the same problem. None of them were built for security first, because such a system would cost more to operate and almost nobody has been demanding to pay more for less performance in security's name. But many have long predicted we'd get to the point where we start to spend our performance advancement budget on security because some development will necessitate it, and it seems like we might have arrived there now. There are and have been more secure systems, but the home PC is going to have to become one of them because otherwise we won't be able to use them for anything other than getting pwned.

And a rather large part of it is user incompetence. Not much of a surprise.

Ever tried running Windows Vista on a minimum spec computer? Painful doesn't even begin to describe it. That's where we're at right now with Windows 11 but at least in the case of Vista they were doing a bunch of fancy modern operating system tricks that brought new features, albeit stupid new features but still they were genuinely trying new features. The hardware at the time couldn't handle that, you really need it about four times as much RAM and an SSD to do what they were doing and that was just too expensive for oems at the time so when does Vista crawled on anything but a high-end gaming PC.

With Windows 11 we've got all that shit performance but absolutely no new features except the operating system spies on me now and feeds all my data into Microsoft's AIs so they can sell co-pilot to my company after firing me. Or at least that's the goal it's debatable whether or not it's going to work out for them but in the meantime my computer runs like shit unless I run Linux or Windows 10 and both of them have issues with games and other complex software...

That would make it easy if the legal system didn't make it hard.

That's a typically shit take, because both of these business guys have proven repeatedly that they are both hot garbage as human beings. It on brand for you to ignore that.

And unfortunately, it does. The corporate world has already satisfied all of the relevant if statements. It works to some extent if you are willing to accept massive failures — the industry has proven that over and over again by rewarding failures with sales, they will buy proven trash before paying for quality; they will accept "good enough for right now" and kick the can forever; they will rewrite entire products and discard years of both development and goodwill just to look like they're forward-looking to idiots, because nobody ever went broke assuming there'd be no shortage of them.

If you're willing to accept shit results because you have no pride then AI is good enough. And... *waves around vaguely* ...people should pay attention, because that's the dominant paradigm.

FVWM had these like 30 years ago...

It's hard to prove that Microsoft cares less about security than other vendors, without a bunch of information from Microsoft and other vendors that we're not privy to — not even shareholders get to know the full risks involved in the products upon which their dividends depend. But it's easy to prove that they will happily lie about it.