In the slashdot post, the words automatically enrich are a hyperlink that point to a guide from NIST explaining the overall CVE process. It has a very prominent section that explains exactly what "enrichment" has historically done for CVE's once they are in the NVD...

The following is a general overview of the enrichment process for a given CVE:

1. Enrichment efforts begin with reviewing any reference material provided with the CVE record and assigns appropriate reference tags. This helps organize the various data sources to help researchers find the relevant information for their needs. Enrichment efforts also include manual searches of the internet to ensure that any other available and relevant information is used for the enrichment process. NVD enrichment efforts only use publicly available materials in the enrichment process.
2. A common weakness enumeration (CWE) identifier is assigned that categorizes the vulnerability. NVD enrichment efforts use a subset of the full list of CWEs that best represents the distribution of specific types of vulnerabilities. This subset is known as the CWE-1003 view and was created through coordination with the MITRE CWE team.
3. CVSS V3.1 exploitability and impact metrics are assigned based on publicly available information and the guidelines of the specification if a CVSS score has not already been assigned. If an existing score is noticed to not be supported by CVSS guidelines or publicly available information while performing other enrichment activities, an enrichment team member may choose to provide a score. Users of NVD data may also request the NVD to provide a score.
4. A Common Platform Enumeration (CPE) Applicability Statement is associated with the vulnerability. The CPE match criteria are generated to identify potentially vulnerable software and/or hardware for the vulnerability. For example, an application may have several versions affected or must be running on a specific operating system to be vulnerable. Automated processes can reference match criteria within the applicability statements against the CPE dictionary to assist in identifying vulnerable products within an organizationâ(TM)s information system. Every effort is made to identify all vulnerable software, but gaps may exist and feedback is encouraged to improve this information.
5. Enrichment effort results are given a quality assurance check by another experienced team member prior to being published to the website and data feeds.

People who sell Face Eating Leopards: "Face Eating Leopards going to have a massive positive impact on society! Everyone should start integrating Face Eating Leopards into every aspect of their daily lives as soon as possible"

People with faces: "I have some concerns about how Face Eating Leopards will impact my life."

How many billions of dollars and thousands of man hours have AI "researchers" cost humanity, just because they evidently forgot to remember a core principle of machine learning?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I got a Logitech M-BA47 from my work around 1999/2000. I used that mouse continuously, with 10+ different computers, and a new job, until ~2022 when one of the micro switches stopped responding. I could have repaired it, but for only a little more then the cost of the replacement switch I was able to find a "new" (still sealed in box) M-BA47 on e-bay. I kept the old one for parts, but I expect this "new" one to last longer then me. WTF would I need a mouse that lasts longer then that?

This was posted to slashdot after the "go live" time of the app/website, but only links to articles posted prior to the launch that speculated it was a hoax.

One of the authors (Alfred Ng) of one of those articles wrote a follow up piece *after* the launch, with the actual details of what the hoax actually was (A marketing stunt) and what registered users saw when they used the app at launch...

When the website went live at 5 p.m. on Monday, the app asked users to sign in using their Tinder, LinkedIn or create a new account. It matched all users up with a fighter named Dudecati. The user wouldn't be able to do anything but type back at the automated response. At the end of it, the bot tells users:

"ok in all seriousness though you're wasting your time here," and then redirects you to the group's website.

a) some of these bugs where filed months ago, and yet those hotspot "optimizations" are still on by default

b) it's true that some problems can be avoided by deliberately disabling these optimizations, but w/o raising big warning alarms to users, people aren't going to know they need to go out of their way to do that. For crash bugs, it may not be so bad -- they see the crash and google to find out why it crashed. For miss-evaluation of loops that can lead to silent data corruption it's a different story -- how would users ever know that they need to disable those options if developers don't yell and holler from the roof tops?