Making games isn't actually that easy? I've been doing it for 25 years, and making a game that's good that people enjoy requires, in no small part, that you yourself enjoy playing games, and that you understand what fun is.

That's a good insight - we're essentially talking about art. There's no real indication that AI can do the actually creative part. But I wonder if a union can either? Art is about allowing inspiration to hit somebody like lightning and allow it to rise to the top. Unions are about making rules for everything to enforce fairness, and I wonder if that will be the most creative environment. Of course top-down corporations struggle with it too especially as they get bigger.

This is a threat of referral to criminal prosecution. Criminal prosecution is a government, not personal or corporate activity. What I say here is that such threats are empty.

People do get that wrong a lot though. Apparently even Microsoft, the FBI and US Attorneys these days.

Everyone knows that 10x engineers validate inputs and carefully manage dependencies; so clearly there's no risk of unexpected behavior.

It seems worth noting that one of the items in Wyden's rather pointed inquiry is the fact that the feasibility of doing this is known to have been demonstrated for the DoD by outside people familiar with it at least as early as 2016; so while this is the first confirmed case of adversarial use it's the outcome of at least a decade of just ignoring the problem; and a significantly longer period of failing to reasonably anticipate the problem. It's not like there's No Such Agency you could ask about "how could you spy on someone with the internet even?" if you wanted to know how well or poorly readily available information matched a nation state signals intelligence apparatus.

Purely as a matter of cellphones being expensive and somewhat tepidly capable in the before times I assume that there was a period within living memory when merely telling people not to Gordon Gekko on their DynaTAC where the russians can hear you was good enough; but that would have clearly and rapidly been getting less true for at least a quarter century.

There's a lot of speculation about life as we don't know it. And that's what it is: speculation. While there are microbes that don't rely on oxygen, and one animal, they are utterly dependent on environments that do require oxygen. So no abiotic life origins here.

Without knowing for sure what to look for in a chlorine based life form even with it live in front of us, performing the forensic search with the body cold billions of years is all but impossible. We will get there some day but people are looking for signs unambiguous, and that means life as we know it.

In the US this is protected speech. There is a flaw in published software such that x and y... This is a statement of observed fact no matter how obscure.

Poor form, yes. Illegal, no. To threaten or intimidate rather than fix the fault is reliance on the ancient Microsoft trope security through obscurity. Tolerance of that oppressive behavior makes us less secure, not more.

Closing their account on your service is fair game though. No obligation to host anyone for any reason.

Dealing with aggrieved customers is just a part of doing business with the public. No matter how well you behave some people just have issues, and some will have legitimate complaints. Microsoft is a multitrillion dollar multinational corporation. That comes with the turf.

>And they will have arisen long long before the explosion.

I am no expert but... At a propellant feed rate of 2,300kg per second and a turbine speed of 19000 rpm that's a lot of mass in motion to come to a sudden stop. At 350 bar of turbopump pressure I can see there being a lot of bang at the first sign of trouble. The engineering limits on these devices may not be fully characterized until mass production has rolled for a while.

The whole 'responsible disclosure' preaching and the not-terribly-subtle threats seem particularly bad given that there's an entire industry of actively more dangerous people who are not only treated as legal but actively courted by state agents and cops(and often even less savory customers, though they tend to be cagey about those); the ones who actively seek to keep vulnerabilities quiet so that they can continue to sell exploit tools and services based on them. Throwing zero days on github isn't ideal vs. getting them fixed; but it gets them fixed faster than if Cellebrite wants to hang on to a bitlocker bypass or Trenchant, and L3Harris Technologies Company, wants to keep selling 'network investigative techniques' that can bypass default windows defender configurations or whatever the situation is.

From the outside it's hard to know whether MS actually mistreated the researcher badly enough to justify their displeasure(the consensus appears to be that MSRC was never the best to deal with and has actively gone downhill; but this person's position seems significantly angrier than average) or whether they are perhaps wound a little tight; but implying that their legal status is the same as people actively running attacks against user systems is blatantly false and totally ignores the class of researchers who do actively run attacks while being treated as respectable.

It's a particularly bad look when at least Facebook got into a public legal fight with the NSO group over their nerd-merc work against their users; not like that actually solved the problem of attacks on cellphones; but it was an all-too-rare case of industry pushing back against the 'respectable' arms dealers; and not one that MS has an analog to.

We'll all pretend that nuclear-tipped VCs will remain cool-headed and cooperative when the AI debts start to go sour.

We're spending trillions on AI. If your business plan is sucking wind on 0.3 of an x, you lack the vision to stay in the game.

JPG 10 year is at 2.6% yield. US Treasury 10 year is at 4.44%.

Whose debt burden is the problem here?

Pic: https://x.com/asherbphotos/sta...

Word is a second booster at the site in the horizontal integration facility was also destroyed.

Impacts go beyond the rocket and pad. This was development for lunar landers to be launched this year, Leo internet satellites to be launched in the coming days, Blue Moon lunar landers for the Artemis lunar program, and on and on. An engine may have been the cause of the mishap and that casts shade on the Vulcan Centaur that also uses the same engine.

It's likely not bought with tax money. The company has various means.

The US government has a few people who do some things that require large quantities of gold bars of blind provenance, indicators of affluence and no accountability. They go to places that don't take US government checks or credit cards. When you have an administrative turnover at war with everything predecessor, some of these people get cashed out.

For some government agencies the ability to get away with fabricated backgrounds is a mandatory qualification. Somebody knew and decided they were cool with this.