At this point, there is probably nothing that can rescue either Microsoft or Linux from the hordes at the wall. Both are performance-first operating systems. There's nothing surprising or unusual about that; this is the dominant paradigm. Windows NT made at least some attempt in the other direction until version 4, but then they prioritized UI latency over memory security. LLMs apparently don't have to be able to think to recognize patterns which indicate vulnerabilities. If having closed source is even still a benefit in hiding failures, it won't be for long.

On top of that, the hardware isn't secure enough either and both are going to have to be addressed to reasonably secure our systems from this new threat. They were never really secure, humans could find the same vulnerabilities, but there weren't enough humans looking. There's lots of compute hours being spent looking.

This isn't limited to Windows and Linux, every vaguely common system has the same problem. None of them were built for security first, because such a system would cost more to operate and almost nobody has been demanding to pay more for less performance in security's name. But many have long predicted we'd get to the point where we start to spend our performance advancement budget on security because some development will necessitate it, and it seems like we might have arrived there now. There are and have been more secure systems, but the home PC is going to have to become one of them because otherwise we won't be able to use them for anything other than getting pwned.

Except it's not a concerning issue. Hantavirus doesn't spread well from human to human except when in close quarters (e.g. cruise ships). When you do the math based on the number of people on the ship, the likely R_0 would be *way* less than one out in the real world. So realistically, if they had evacuated the cruise ship after the first case, most of the people who got sick wouldn't have gotten sick, and you'd have at most maybe one or two cases in people who weren't on the ship, and that's about the realistic limit to its spread.

I don't remember the exact numbers I came up with, but it was something laughable like an R_0 of 0.15 or something.

It's a human interest story, because folks felt for the people trapped on that ship, but it was not a meaningful public health threat given the numbers involved.

It of course works to some extent. It doesn't work to an extent that it can replace a meaningful part of engineer time, though it can certainly be used for rapid prototyping and other special cases.

Most of engineers' time isn't spent writing code. It is spent reviewing code and understanding the code. When a person writes code, they are doing this while they write the code. When AI writes the code, that time is spent on the back end while reviewing the code. This is actually more mentally intensive than writing the code to begin with, because you're having to concentrate much more continuously. This means it takes longer, on average, and you're much more likely to make mistakes and miss critical errors during the review process, because you're trying to shove all of that mental effort into a much smaller amount of time. So you save a lot of time up front, and you pay back nearly all of that time at the end.

Until such time as AI can write perfect code that doesn't require human review, the review process will continue to be the bottleneck, and I'm not seeing any evidence that AI is approaching that point.

AI is great for creating demos that you're going to throw away and rewrite a dozen times. Teams that are playing with ideas for new features can potentially generate a lot more prototypes quickly by using AI. But they're saving time precisely because it's throwaway code. As soon as you're trying to use it for production code, the savings evaporate. Or at least this is what I have seen pretty consistently.

This is not to say that AI is useless for coding. When used as a glorified autocomplete engine, it can save you from a lot of tedious busywork. When used for code review, it at least has the potential to catch interesting bugs before they make it into production. And so on. But the notion that this will suddenly allow for cutting a large percentage of programmers is utterly naïve. Given their previous cuts, they've already exceeded the expected payoff from AI. So blaming this on AI savings isn't realistic.

So the real question is whether they'll be able to get their AI tech up to the quality and scalability level where they can survive on only that revenue before their social media platform craters from inadequate resourcing.

That would make it easy if the legal system didn't make it hard.

That's a typically shit take, because both of these business guys have proven repeatedly that they are both hot garbage as human beings. It on brand for you to ignore that.

And unfortunately, it does. The corporate world has already satisfied all of the relevant if statements. It works to some extent if you are willing to accept massive failures — the industry has proven that over and over again by rewarding failures with sales, they will buy proven trash before paying for quality; they will accept "good enough for right now" and kick the can forever; they will rewrite entire products and discard years of both development and goodwill just to look like they're forward-looking to idiots, because nobody ever went broke assuming there'd be no shortage of them.

If you're willing to accept shit results because you have no pride then AI is good enough. And... *waves around vaguely* ...people should pay attention, because that's the dominant paradigm.

It's hard to prove that Microsoft cares less about security than other vendors, without a bunch of information from Microsoft and other vendors that we're not privy to — not even shareholders get to know the full risks involved in the products upon which their dividends depend. But it's easy to prove that they will happily lie about it.

It's the dream of sociopathic greedy billionaires everywhere. Too bad for them that it's a pipe dream.

Here's the harsh reality: AI doesn't work. You can spend days cajoling AI into doing something correctly and spend days reviewing the bad code over and over until it gets it right or you can spend days writing the code. On average, the time savings are minimal, and the cost in terms of code understanding is enormous, resulting in less and less maintainable code over time until you eventually end up having to throw the whole thing away and rewrite it from scratch at an enormous cost.

Mind you, Meta was probably at the point where their whole code base needed to be thrown away and rewritten from scratch at least five years ago, given the level of bugginess that I've seen, so maybe AI lets them extend the long tail of badly written code a bit longer before they completely implode, but that's hardly a position for other execs to aspire to.

They won't. They'll have a bumpy few months followed by mass attrition from the complete destruction of employee morale, followed by panic when they realize that they don't have enough remaining employees to keep the lights on adequately, followed by even bigger panic when they realize qualified candidates aren't even bothering to apply for their open positions.

Nobody wants to work for a dying shell of a company that laid off a third of their workers over only a couple of years. As a company, if you're not innovating and growing, you're dying. Meta is dying. Their AI is basically worst-in-class at this point, and everything else is getting shoved aside to make more money for that latest boondoggle, because their execs don't know how to recognize a sunk cost fallacy.

It would take a literal miracle to save Meta from the death spiral that this will cause. If I owned Meta stock, I'd be selling in a hurry right now, or at least selling covered calls to buy protective puts to limit my losses. Stick a fork in it. They're done.

You start out doing it to others; but the empire always comes home in the end.

They drag them to school, but at that point, there's a record, and if it keeps happening, it becomes a legal problem for the parents, who have a responsibility for making sure their kids go to school.

To a school that is under-funded in part because kids aren't meeting the minimum attendance for the school to get paid.

All of those things are the responsibility of their parents. Those are adult problems for adults to solve. Kids can't realistically solve them, and can't reasonably be expected to solve them. And as soon as you let kids try to solve them, you're reinforcing the cycle of poverty by preventing them from getting the education that would enable to them to break that cycle. I'm not saying it's fair or good, just that preventing such things is better than the alternative, where we have child labor who grow up to be adults who earn minimum wage or worse.

The virus can persist for days in dry crap, which is the primary way it's spread to humans, when they disturb it

Yeah it's a good idea to try to get people concerned about concerning issues

No problem, there are never rats on ships

Firewood permits are only for falls here in California. They're still cheap at least.

As far as I can tell that is essentially true. The restrictions seem to be more on what they can or cannot do with rates than anything else. However they also still have to apply for permits for things like anyone else, and here in California can by stymied by the coastal commission.