Wow, BIND, though? Do a quick search on "history of BIND vulnerabilities." Sure, people run all these tests on it now, and in the past, and the history has been there's been a lot of causes of concern.

Yeah, that's pretty old-fashioned. In my experience, it's barely done now. Kinda like how nobody writes JavaScript like it's Pascal anymore.

"Important for our species" ... how? Trust me, our species ain't going anywhere. There's nowhere to go.

You could make the same observation about an obstacle course: completely artificial, simple engineering to make one no human can pass, but typically dialed just to where some humans can manage it.

What are weight classes other than a way to artificially give people opponents they can beat?

As far as sports go the point is simply that the outcome isn't guaranteed. That leaves room for human ingenuity, risk taking, and showmanship, with possibility of both reward and consequence. (In this case, even if the robots were a literal pushover, the spectators and maybe even the opponent couldn't have known that for sure. Any future of the sport would have to adapt to preserve those unknowns between bouts.)

So while everyone seems to agree that building server-side applications with things like Node and Python is wrong, foolish, and that "there are much better options" ... does anyone care to tell me what those options are?

I mean ... aren't a lot of server-side apps basically just playing catch ("I'm tossing you a ball, now you toss me a ball back") and in between there, it interacts with a database? You really don't think you can do that with Node or Python? Does e.g. Java really give you so much more reliability, maintainability, performance, etc?

Well, it wasn't Unix. But it was inspired by Minix, a widely-taught teaching operating system that Torvalds decided to make into a thing you could use every day.

Debt is indeed a rising threat. Us federal debt has reached $40 trillion (greater than the total GDP), with interest payments now the second-largest expenditure after Social Security. The bill works out to $4k per person, or $12k per tax return filed.

Really consider that the first $12k on your tax return bought you nothing. Not just nothing personally, it funded no library, no road, no food stamp, it just evaporated into financial fees. And we're hitting a higher-interest era where borrowing is more expensive.

AI related growth and investment is what's been keeping the present economy floating in the wake of tariffs, accounting for something like 30-50% of recent GDP growth and hundreds of thousands of jobs.

It also the only thing that could possibly result in enough growth to offset the rising debt ratio and prevent a painful economic future. (Even then the growth will have to be on the very high end of projections.)

So it's weird to come away from that and imply AI is imposing an existential risk ("The Real AI Threat") due to "weaker or less durable investment and profitability in artificial intelligence". That's like if your take on medicine was "medical research is a catastrophic thing to get involved with, instead of curing all cancers we might only cure certain varieties, do you want a future in which you die from those cancers?"

This just in, a report published by a group of people who would be materially harmed by losing business to the EU building its own technical capacity declared it would be costly and unfeasible to ever abandon them.

Up next after the commercial break, we report on how water is wet and grass grows.

Exactly. And Vmware's calculus is that as long as it has a dozen gigantic clients (governments, huge enterprises) that it can charge whatever it wants, then the small fish aren't worth it.

We have bubonic plague infections every year in the United States. Very, very few, admittedly, but it's not like it's been eradicated. So there's still benefit in studying it.

The more I hear about this so-called "SF Democratic Party," the more I'm convinced they don't speak for the majority of SF voters. Seriously. They seem to be some strange, centrist organization that no voters belong to and nobody knows where they get their money from.

Who was telling them that if they treated ectopic pregnancies they might face legal repercussions? Is that what the law actually said?

I believe you'll find it was the people who opposed the law who waged a campaign of disinformation to try to convince people that women would not be able to get life saving care. Turns out there are actual dangers to lying to slander your opponents when it's about what kind of medical treatment is available.

So lesson learned, going to be very careful not to mischaracterize in the future right?

The article OP cites is about a policy study for a policy that no one has so far enacted or voted for. How does that become proof that "they don't care about people and this lawsuit should be thrown out." How did you extrapolate the "they"? How did you manage to impart motive into every member of that collective based on an unfulfilled hypothetical? How did that lead to being able to seek an injunction on AI? Have you established it is the same "they" in question? And when the "they" has a position you don't like it become a prohibition on any action they could possibly take? How does that work in general?

Pennsylvania has a democratic governor, democratic house, democratic senator, voted for Obama, Obama again, and Biden. Their measles outbreak is laid up as a Republican failing? Why isn't Florida much worse then? Canada has been having thousands of cases to they point they lost their measles elimination status. Who is in control of Canada?

When did this happen? Citation, please.

You are aware that Joe Biden, while seemingly a nice enough guy, was wildly unpopular as a leader, including among the left? It was the Democrats, after all, who convinced him not to run for a second term.

What's being alleged here is closer to price fixing, which is also an antitrust violation. Hypothetically, let's say four major automakers got together and said, "We all know we have access to the latest in brake technology, but we collectively agree not to deploy it until two years from now," presumably for business reasons. That kind of collusion is illegal.

Everybody seems to be complaining ... although that's nothing new. Some people hate Gnome, others hate KDE.

So I ask you (everybody): Is anything good? Cuz we ain't gonna have the Year of the Linux Desktop without a UI. Do we all switch to Enlightenment?