...that will be a maintenance nightmare in future (when a human needs to read and understand what's going on)

I feel you brother. The assumption is that it will not be necessary to understand what's going on. As in "understand the code". Any problems can be just thrown back at AI and it will come up with the fix. Says my PHB.

Just like the old joke: if it doesn't solve your problems, you are not using enough of it.

Basically as we moved from pushing buttons for 0 and 1 to assembly, then to C, then to Java/Python/whatever, then to 4G languages ... the next level is prompts. You tell AI "solve the world hunger" and it will churn out some "solution". If the solution (inevitably) turns out to have some issues, you just do another round of prompts. Nobody is going to look at the code just like you do not look at assembly (yeah, you are on slashdot, so may be you do).

I'm myself in position of maintaining decades old software that happens to work most of the time (as in "99.99%") and brings in real money. My supervisor came, released AI on the project like a pack of wolves and now there is literally more then 20 times the number of classes, single line wrappers, classes implementing if() statements, interfaces with single implementing class, logs drowning in noise while useful log messages gone, diffs with thousands of lines that I should review and sing off, every tens of e-mails from AI describing what the old code flaws were and how they needed fixing, using terms that were never used in my domain, ... on one hand, yes, many of the flaws are real and ideally should be fixed. On the other hand the flood gates are open and I happen to stand downstream. Object and you really quick become the roadblock to bright future.

The problem isn't what he says, but the fact that he is taken seriously despite what he says.

This reminds me of a viral video where a group of black soldiers gives AK-47 to a chimpanzee. They all are having great fun, until the ape accidentally touches the trigger ...

Trump is the same. Everybody is boot-licking, ass-kissing and tiptoeing around him only because he can press the red button anytime. That's why he is "taken seriously". Nothing else.

Germany - 3 years
Poland - 4 years
Sweden - 2.5 years
Netherland - 2 years
Turkey - 2 years

Is your google broken?

Every month I print 5 custom labels that are at about 100x55mm. Because I want to save the special paper with one adhesive side, I designed template with two columns on A4. One month I print the left column and cut the paper across the column dividing line. Next month I print on the rest of the paper. I.e. A4 height (297mm) and half width of A4 (210/2=105mm). The printer feeder has to be adjusted to lead the paper in the middle of the normal print width. Yet, it works in LibreOffice without issues.

spectacle.

Can't you do the same in a more standards-compatible way with CTRL+c, CTRL+v?

Let me guess: you think "Windows ways" == "standard way"?

Also: how do you copy from terminal? Do you override key combination to send interrupt signal? Or use "non standard" key combination?

What makes you think that it would treat packets arriving on the WAN interface any differently?

I'll gladly learn about the topic more. In my opinion the home router is a default gateway for the LAN so it is reasonable for it to accept on the LAN interface(s) any packets with source IP from LAN network. For any packets with LAN IP source and non-LAN-IP destination it should forward them to the WAN interface (while NAT-ing the source address). However there is no reason no accept any packet on WAN side that does not have destination address matching WAN IP. Just like there is no reason to accept and process packets with non-LAN IP source coming to LAN ports. Or accept and process packets with source or destination IP from private IP space coming to WAN interface.
That's just common sense to me. So are you saying that D-Link, TP-link, Zyxel, ADB, ZTE, ... routers sometimes (often?) do no do this kind of filtering?

You misunderstood me. No offense. I do not oppose IPv6 and I would gladly use it if my ISP provided some reasonable support. I was just asking how the attack on LAN with a ubiquitous NAT implementation in SOHO routers would work.

.,.. does it count as a dupe?

Excuse me, but how does it work in practice? I have currently optic fiber connection going to ISP-provided router - Sagemcom F@st 5670 (Crap. I know.). The ISP will not accept replacing that with a different device (GPON ONT). The device does have a web interface for some basic management, but I can't really inspect the network traffic there. The previous ISP it was the same just different device - Huawei EchoLife HG8245H. The previous ISP was on ADSL with of-the-shelf SOHO router such as D-link Dir-615. In all cases I assume that the device gets on the WAN interface a public (or CGNAT IP) address assigned by ISP and will accept only packets with destination IP address matching that WAN interface IP address. Are you saying that it is not the case and there are routers (provided by ISPs), that will accept packets coming to WAN interface and not having packet destination IP address matching the WAN interface IP address? I find that hard to believe unless we talk about some small community ISP run by amateurs.

a) over here the video from the woman would be not admitted because it does not come from a certified device (e.g. the timestamps on the video would not be trusted). That is, of course, also true for the video used by the police. Unless it comes from certified cameras operated by the police, it should not be admissible.

b) in world of AI you can anytime generate video of you being 100 miles away from the crime scene. How is that supposed to be a relevant proof?

Thanks for your reply. I'll give it a shot.

I got hit by this ;-/ And crucial information is missing.

• Can the faulty KB5066835 be un-installed?
• Does that fix the problem?
• What part of KB5066835 description talks about touching boot process?

I dual boot with the OS selection being done at UEFI level - I have to press a key at boot time to get UEFI boot selection dialog. I don't get the selection dialog if I do normal reboot in Windows, only if I do Shift+Reboot - which was, at some point, announced as a way to "avoid fast boot". Nowadays it seems to be described as a way to enter Windows Recovery Environment. How/why does fast boot skip UEFI boot selection dialog? Would disabling fast boot in windows solve the issue for me? I.e. would I get UEFI boot selection dialog but skip entering the Windows Recovery Environment screen?