I've argued for a while, AI may not take all jobs, but it certainly will cut down on number of hires.

So instead of several testers, and a team of back-end and front-end devs, depending on size of company, they can get away with half or quarter of the team.

Sadly as AI gets ever more advanced, I envision a time perhaps in a year or two where the senior dev is left mostly just reviewing pull requests generated by AI.

AI is already taking away design opportunities, and you only have to look at some of the professional and frankly, quite amazing presentations and infographics coming out, not to mention the countless thumbnails for YouTube/Rumble videos!

Yes, God is the Greatest.
And?

Isn't that what every religion that believes in a deity, also believe?

This is false.

Mozilla themselves state in the article:
"AI-assisted bug reports have a mixed track record, and skepticism is earned. Too many submissions have meant false positives and an extra burden for open source projects. What we received from the Frontier Red Team at Anthropic was different."

Regardless, you can see various high-severity security issues found by Claude Opus 4.6 patched in the latest version of Firefox (v148) here.

Citation?

Both the article from mozilla and anthropic doesn't mention anything about a "test version of the browser", instead it specifically states the current/latest version of Firefox...

The article goes on to state:

Here's the list of all fixed vulnerabilities in Firefox 148, as found by Claude Opus 4.6.

Mozilla's themselves state:

Thank you.

Recently found out about it, although I was using r3dfox on my Win8.1 machine.

Not sure how r3dfox built by a single dev can compile and fix several issues to make Firefox run on Win7 and 8.1 machine, but Mozilla with their highly paid devs is unable to do the same?

Trying to stick with win8.1 as long as I can before being forced to downgrade to spyware-ridden Win10.

That could be because many technologists disable telemetry out of fear of spying, and so what we need doesn't really get exposed to mozilla / other non-profit projects. Which would also explain why the interface keeps getting dumbed down and oversimplified.

Regardless, it's a simple toggle under: Settings -> Privacy -> Data collection.

Unlike Google's aggressive and extensive data collection via countless avenues which we mostly can't escape (recaptcha, analytics, doubleclick, googlesyndication, tagmanager, googleapis, maps api, firebase, play store, youtube embeds, etc), it only takes 1 or 2 domains to block Firefox telemetry endpoints, if you really don't trust the toggle. Alternatively pi-hole / NextDNS takes care of it.

Telemetry doesn't always mean spying, especially when done by a non-profit in a responsible anonymised way.

Telemetry is extremely useful in many cases, and it's the reason most websites implement analytics of some sort.

In Firefox's case, telemetry can reveal that many people don't notice a feature or rarely use it, so it doesn't need to be as prominent. It can also show that many users visit `about:config` to change settings, which suggests the org should expose those options in a more user-friendly way instead of burying them.

Telemetry can also reveal widespread use of an add-on, which may justify building that functionality into the browser. Examples include tracking protection, dev tools, tab controls, and vertical tabs, etc.

Regardless, Firefox asks on first install and in new profiles whether to enable technical data collection.

Curious how some would frame the UAE with a native population of ~12% and immigrants / expats making up the majority at ~88% (same in Qatar), majority of whom are Arab / South Asian Muslims - 85% who identify as Muslims in UAE, and 65% in Qatar.

Meanwhile UAE and Qatar are consistently ranked as some of the safest places in the world.

Sources: -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.numbeo.com/crime/r...

The "Big Four" refers to the four largest global accounting and professional services firms:

* Deloitte
* PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC)
* Ernst & Young (EY)
* KPMG

Did a bit more research, turns out, these trains were originally built by Vivarail (using Hoppecke NMC battery tech) before being acquired by GWR.

LFP batteries aren't able to charge as fast, especially under 5 minutes using an enormous 2 MW (2000 kW) charger.

For comparison:
* A Tesla Supercharger V3: 250 kW
* A modern electric bus with LFP: 300-450 kW

So the GWR train is charging at 5x the power of a modern fast-charging bus, and 8x a Tesla.

LFP charges at a slower pace, is a lot heavier, and has lower energy and power density, and more sensitive to cold weather.

Moderated as "troll" and "off-topic", really?

"Redundant" perhaps, but my comment is entirely on-topic and not being a troll or insulting anyone
.
After some research, found out some of what I knew is outdated, especially regarding types of lithium technology.

False - these trains don't use low energy density LFP batteries like buses, or some EVs. It still uses the tried an tested NMC modules. However, I'm aware of more recent battery-operated train projects using LFP.

To change these older GWR trains (originally vivarail) to LFP would not only add considerable weight, due to many more cells, but the entire electronics and cooling systems needs to be changed, and not to mention, LFP performs worse than NMC in cold weather, and takes longer to charge.

It turns out these trains use regenerative braking and since it's designed not to drain completely, it should last around 8-10 years.

But I accept, some of my understanding is dated, especially if we are able to move to sodium-based battery tech..

Seems really bad idea to use batteries in trains (and transportation with huge battery packs), not only due to extreme weather and cold spells which shorten battery life, but the constant daily charge/drain cycles multiple times a day will just kill the battery capacity more quickly.

Add to that, lithium batteries use what limited amount of lithium, manganese, cobalt, nickel, etc that we have available in the earth, and accelerating mining not only damages the earth, but uses a lot of clean finite water we have available, and potentially adds to slave labour in places like Congo and causes disastrous emissions in various mining regions.

I never understand why people like comments like this, almost like a hit and run.

No substance, no engagement, nothing constructive, just hit and run.

I agree.

Perhaps the AI tools the Ruby on Rails creator was using are not as well designed for a language which has been described as "not a serious programming language"?

Worse still, it's one of the lower ranked languages, even lower than Assembly, Cobol, and even classic Visual Basic!

So I'm left wondering, is their opinion worth listening to, especially considering Linus Torvalds is dabbling in using AI? hmm