It really depends if you are doing a static analysis or a dynamic one.

In the static sense, all costs are always paid by the end purchaser - mining or growing the materials, refining them, processing them, building the item, transportation, distribution, taxes, tariffs, fees, profits (on many sub-levels).

In a dynamic analysis, on the other hand, all of those things are already being paid, and now the allocation is shifting, and maybe the end price is shifting too. To complicate things, end prices are largely set by demand, and not necessarily by the costs. If costs go up, but the market won't pay more, the producer might have to accept less profit or go out of business. For most things, the markets aren't that tight and maybe the purchaser will accept some price increase, but not all of it.

And then there are second order effects. Tariffs are often designed in such a way that producers can evade them by moving production here, so that the wealth is created here, by jobs here.

To clarify, the users were OpenAI themselves, so there is no question that they would be liable in this case.

The bots were not intentionally deployed; rather, they were being tested on how well they could complete a data recovery task (downloading a certain file from a certain server on a simulated Internet) that had been complicated by putting various obstacles in the way. Unfortunately, they found a different way to solve the problem: by getting the file from the real Internet, where it was publicly available. Part of this process involved collaborating with each other by treating the RubyGems website (which is supposed to be for polished packages) like GitHub; unlike every other package site hack in history, the exploits they uploaded weren't meant to be downloaded by unsuspecting users. As usual the bots cheerfully ignored all the clues that they had escaped containment and were consistently justifying their actions as acceptable due to being in a sandboxed testing environment. (This is something OpenAI has pledged to focus on.)

The actual damage done to RubyGems seems to be that OpenAI is now unwittingly in possession of a substantial number of user login tokens. This certainly meets the definition of a data breach, but it's not like the credentials are for sale on the dark web. As a website operator I'd much rather be mauled to death by this well-meaning swarm of superintelligent infants than targeted by even a single actual malicious human. In all likelihood OpenAI will just quietly pass RubyGems a sizeable donation and it'll all blow over.

As long as they didn't all say THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM when they resumed, we'll probably be OK.

Well, technically, we're letting Natalie do it, which is, of course, worse in every way imaginable, since she's immune to the sense of embarrassment that sometimes restrains him from acting on every little whim.

To be honest that was actually my first theory, since the bots didn't seem interested in exploring the rest of the domain. I suppose there's no way to know for certain. I concluded that it must be an imbecile's attempt at harvesting, though, because the queries weren't really exploring the string space in any useful way. Here's a sample:

"GET /index?author=15&go=Search&id=48&name_restrict=1&q&re&results_&results_pagenum=2980 HTTP/1.1"
"GET /index?author=2&go=Search&group=0&group_restrict=1&id=48&name_restrict=1&q&results_pagenum=5440&template=41&type HTTP/1.1"
"GET /index?author=15&go=Search&id=48&name_restrict=1&q&results_pagenum=33500&templat HTTP/1.1"
"GET /index?author=15&go=Search&id=48&name_restrict=1&q&results_pagenum=32640&templ HTTP/1.1"
"GET /index?author=15&go=Search&id=48&name_restrict=1&q&res&results_page&results_pagenum=39300 HTTP/1.1"
"GET /index?author=15&go=Search&id=48&name_restrict=1&q&results_&results_pa&results_pagenum=12340 HTTP/1.1"
"GET /index?author=2&go=Search&group=0&group_restrict=1&id=48&name_r&res&results_pagenum=6100 HTTP/1.1"
"GET /index?author=2&go=Search&group=0&group_restrict=1&id=48&name_restrict=1&q&results_pagenum=2920&te HTTP/1.1"
"GET /index?author=15&go=Search&id=48&nam&results_&results_pagenum=17940 HTTP/1.1"
"GET /index?author=15&go=Search&id=48&name_restrict=1&q&results&results_pag&results_pagenu&results_pagenum=37720 HTTP/1.1"
"GET /index?author=15&go=Search&id=48&name_restrict=1&q&results_pagenum=9360&template=41&type_r HTTP/1.1"
"GET /index?author=15&go=Search&id=48&name_restrict=1&q&r&results_pagenum=28040 HTTP/1.1"
"GET /index?author=15&go=Search&id=48&name_&results_pag&results_pagenum=10400 HTTP/1.1"

The only thing this is fuzzing is the query string parser. It's not testing the limits of string buffers, it's not using interesting characters, it's just brain-damaged. The fact that it's also fetching different page numbers shows it's trying to follow page links and failing badly at doing so.

The site gets plenty of sniffing from garden-variety pests. e.g. this half-hearted attempt to find a framework or two that I don't have:

"POST /__rsc HTTP/1.1"
"POST /api/auth/session HTTP/1.1"
"POST /api/auth HTTP/1.1"
"POST /__nextjs_action HTTP/1.1"
"POST /.action HTTP/1.1"
"POST /_rsc HTTP/1.1"
"POST /api/auth/callback HTTP/1.1"
"POST /_middleware HTTP/1.1"
"POST / HTTP/1.1"

(of course, none of these URLs exist other than /, and you definitely can't just POST to it)

All this said... I've seen that spammers regularly misconfigure their tools, they'll try to register accounts with names like #[X:\LISTS\NAMES.TXT] and it only makes sense that some other cybercriminals trying to get rich quick have a similar lack of interest in programming shit correctly. Generally people don't turn to script kiddie shit if they have a personality conducive to putting in an honest hard day's work perfecting their craft.

I believe the plan was to give that sobriquet to Lake Michigan, in honour of its decidedly flaccid silhouette.

I had a problem where AI scrapers were absolutely DETERMINED to fish out every possible query string from a search results page. Almost all of the query strings they tried were invalid due to shitty and dysfunctional string substitution. "&page=100" wouldn't be followed by "&page=101", it would be followed by "&pag&pag=1010" or something even more insanely half-baked, until the query strings were like 100+ characters long. It was the technological equivalent of watching HIV mutate in real time.

But the insane thing was that, aside from page number, they were always requesting info about the same other criteria: filtered by the same user, the same page type, and with no text string. So I just took those particular values and started banning logged-out users who requested that combination of criteria.

I figured I'd need to change my tactics in a couple of days once the botnet got bored of that particular page and moved on to requesting bogus entries for another user.

MariaDB> select count(*) from ip_bans;
+----------+
| count(*) |
+----------+
| 671671 |
+----------+

It hasn't.

I believe that would be the Increasing Transparency in Generic Drug Applications Act, and the Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act, both bipartisan, and both passed this year.

There is no such thing as "immutable" storage, despite being the current buzzword in the storage industry. Even LTO WORM tapes - as close as you can get these days - are just regular tapes with a bit set in the RFID chip that asks the drive to "please don't erase me".

What you really want is at least one copy of the data "offline".

I agree. I've been a T-Mobile customer since they were called VoiceStream. Up until [what feels like] five years ago, I LOVED them. Like, I almost felt an allegiance toward them, because they were one of the few cool companies that actually seemed to care about customer experience.

But, new leadership --> new direction, no more US call centers, the "forever plan" was bullshit... Now, I fucking hate them.

Although, I do have to admit, while I was spending time in the High Uintah mountains this past week, it was awesome getting 15 Mbps from my free Starlink access. But, that's more thanks to Starlink than T-Mobile -- at least, as far as I'm willing to attribute.

I regret to inform you that you have woefully underestimated it. The actual retail rate offered to consumers is closer to $2200 US per gallon. Sources: internet-ink.com, cbc.ca. This $14 million fine is only worth like, seven thousand gallons, or less than 200 oil barrels of ink.

Such a low slash ID for such a young child.

Yep, Thunderbird. It's awesome, and one of the few OSS projects I've actually donated to.

So far, you're right. But, why change the subject to NYC? Probably because you know the same can't be said for the state in question. California HAS had a mass ex-migration wealthy business leaders and owners over the past few years.

...divorced from the grinding reality of regular folks.

What's the grinding reality of regular folks? I worked two jobs for years to put myself through college, got a job as an electrical engineer / firmware engineer (I've moved around a lot, working for some stable and some startup companies). I own a house and two cars, and work ~8 hours a day. Am I regular folk? Is my reality "grinding"?

I was able to buy a few shares of SPCX in the IPO, just for the hell of it. Now, as business builds, and Elon gets ever richer, so will I (a little). And, this is despite the fact that, YES, I AM regular folk.