Oh no, there is no victory. Your summary is pretty good here. But the idea that Linux is provably less secure because old bugs were found is flatly wrong. They were found late, but they were indeed found. How many ancient bugs are lurking in proprietary software that nobody has found for positive reasons and made full disclosures of so affected parties know they need to mitigate? Nobody knows!

Server OSes are more likely to have older versions of software and then backport fixes. Desktop OSes are more likely to default to doing automatic updates, or at least hassling the user to do them.

The only difference is that servers are more likely to have more outdated software.

Love of convenience, I guess. I often find it astonishing myself. The software might do 100 times more but it takes 1000 times as much memory...

Nice theory. But why would they need to ask? They just offer a salary that is insufficient if the candidate has a family and the candidate with the family quickly answers "No".

If none of the candidates accepts, then they can look for more candidates or call around with slightly better offers until they find a fish.

I think most of those things are clumsy bandages. The fundamental requirement of a real solution would be to transfer money to people who are doing the really difficult work of raising children. However, it looks less expensive to count on lust for sex and love of your own children to get as much as possible of the work "for free". And CPS is another bandage for the resulting problems...

NAK

No thanks. YouTube is the largest scam in this story. (That'll teach you not to ask me? And I'm still going to fall short of Funny...)

It would be interesting to see the real financial data. I think the google actually knows how the money works in YouTube, but revealing how the trick works could create a "That trick never works" again situation. However the general outlines are pretty clear.

YouTube gets lots of eyeballs. That's largely because there is lots of new content all the time, and creating that content is not seen as a cost on the google's side. They basically take a free-speech-ask-no-questions approach, but I'm pretty sure the real data would show that most of the most attractive content is not little guys exercising their free speech, but either big guys trying to get some free publicity, normally with excerpts, or outright criminals pirating the best stuff they can find and copy. But the real question is how much loot google is making from advertising versus how much comes from people paying to avoid some of the advertising...

So yeah, I'm glad the cops finally got around to doing something about this flamboyant and moderately profitable scam, but "Heck no thanks" to watching the YouTube spin version, even if it was cut under ten minutes. Crime is too profitable these years.

Disclaimer needed? I sort of listen to YouTube while I'm doing other stuff. Whenever I notice an ad I flip back to that tab and cut it off. But there's some recursive humor in there because some of the listening time is while I'm scanning the fresh videos (in the subscribed channels, mostly humor) to see if there are any to add to the "watch later" list. Equilibrium around 10 per day? (So my "best stuff" is mostly advertising for tickets to live comedy.) But my actual "watching" time is minimal. I mostly don't look unless I hear something that doesn't make sense without looking at it...

I assume that, as an exercise, getting 5 simultaneous introductions working makes for a better paper; but is there a reason why you would want that in practice? Especially if there is any wobble in the ratios either randomly, across generations, or in the presence of certain environmental conditions that tweak the plant's metabolism one way or another that sounds like it would be a real pain in the ass to have to re-balance (and, if different patients are deemed to need different combinations even a perfectly stable plant is going to need re-balancing of the outputs) vs. very specifically going for a specific target output per-plant(or e. coli or yeast or whatever is easiest to bioreactor) and then just mixing to taste after purification. Is there some advantage I'm not seeing?

I realize that there are cases where some plant-sourced pharmacological effect looks like it is actually driven not by the identified 'active ingredient'; but by dozens or hundreds of assorted things, and in that case you just have to live with the complexity if you get better results with that than with purified isolates; but if you are deliberately engineering for very specific outputs why a mix of 5?

Linux underpins the internet. It's the primary server OS on the planet. High-value data is held on Linux systems. The idea that it's not profitable to attack those targets is silly. They're harder to attack. People still do it. That's why there are still ssh port scans for example.

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

It is, but IME a lot of software needs architectural changes to work on it, similar to when you're trying to build software for Windows in cygwin. That's one reason I decided it wasn't worth the hassle back when I was running it.

When it comes to being allowed to do what you want with your computer, it's a lot more like Windows than it is like Linux. And it's been getting worse.

Now tell us how many similar bugs are in Windows, and will be found even without the obscurity of closed source. You don't know, because you depend on Microsoft to tell you when they fuck up, but you're declaring this a victory for Microsoft anyway? Do fucking tell.

No, 2MB was never enough for a Linux desktop. I had 8MB on my 386 and it was only just sufficient.

Ever heard of a race to the bottom?

So you have two candidates for a job. But one of them has a family to support and the other one is still living at home. You don't think that's relevant to the salary offer that each candidate will consider acceptable?

Too bad the future of society depends on people having families and therefore on having incomes high enough to support families. Unintended consequences and all that stuff.