Re: elephant in the room (or web page)
Which benefit is immediately seized to further enshitify the web.
Remember "Two seconds is too long"? I do.
3641 publicly visible posts • joined 23 Jan 2015
My daughter got stranded in Denver overnight. She called me & we talked about her options: get to a hotel for about four hours "sleep" or stay overnight in the airport. She decided to stay, to which I said, "Okay, but at 3am, you will wish you hand not." She later remarked about just how precise my prediction was.
For an E-5 with three years of service, that's $3775/mo. source. There is probably some incentive pay, but I would be shocked if it exceeded another $30k/yr.
And ATC is REALLY high stress. When I was in, the expectation was that ATCs left as fast as they could (that is, at the four-year point).
No, I was SatCom. We trained at the same base.
I'm afraid it goes much deeper than that. Certainly, javascript has a lot of problems. In fact, it's very presence in browsers was controverted because it broke a traditional security boundary--connecting to another computer should NOT mean executing arbitrary code at the behest of the said computer.
One of the tenants of the The Cathedral and the Bazaar is "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow". Management has taken this to effectively mean "OS software is bug free". So while everyone has made use of OSS, almost no one has been reviewing it for bugs or security issues. Sure, we get occasional big splash announcements of various initiatives, but they always shut down because there is no profit in it.
Of course LLMs aren't really helping because there are SO MANY issues that maintainers can't respond to them all. Moreover, when LLM providers start charging enough to recover costs, things will revert to something close to the prior status quo.
Note that many of the LLM-spotted issues are WONTFIX-class. It is worthwhile to ask, however, "why?" It's because the cost to the maintain of a fix exceeds the value. Not that there is no issue at all.
The reality is that we started using the term "software engineering" in the 90's in an attempt to cut down on the amount of slop software that was being foisted off on an unsuspecting public.
I'll keep saying this: customers have no way to evaluate security, and little ability to evaluate software quality in general. Companies exist to generate profits.
I'm trying to figure out what useful information is surfaced in this article. You've got some mid-level FBI agent who was so ensconced in her little bubble that when she stepped outside, she was shocked that the sun was so bright. Reminds me of that joker Biden appointed who didn't realize cybersecurity was a major threat until 2019.
If someone is so stupid as to fail to understand someone so obvious and so unaware as to announce the fact, quietly just bury the interview. No need to further shame them by publicizing the interview.
I don't know what the standard time is for the US to hold TOP SECRET material, but word that we had completely broken Enigma was still held tight when David Khan wrote The Codebreakers in 1967. So, in the US at least, twenty years is a known minimum for at least some classes of information.
Moreover, we have held detailed census data for seventy years.
There really are quite a few secrets that need to be held, not for one decade, but for several.
So are we to assume that EVERY malware author already has access to equal or better tooling? What does the US government stand to gain by the release of this tool?
I'ld rather have highly detailed information about nuclear power production made generally available. That's a risk/reward calculation I can at least fathom.
Depending on your age & exactly where you were on the spectrum, I can very much see that. I was old enough to understand that it was mostly silly entertainment, and, as such, quite enjoyed it.
I mean, the pre-history of the show was that he did a moonshot from his junk yard. That's way, way less serious than any other series I can think of.
I don't see how. These packages were updated via legitimate channels. A cache is just going to hold on to the update.
I've been pushing for local package caches for more than a decade, but they DO require careful attention or they become another way for things to break.
Yeah, but as I learned after the Soleimani extermination, the US has gone to war without a formal declaration of war starting with the Quasi-War with France (1798-1800) and Barbary Wars, I and II (1801-1815). The five times we have actually declared war per the constitution stand out for their exceptionalism.
More relevant to the discussion, the Geneva Conventions were updated, as covered by these pages, to include cyber attacks as potential casus belli after Mr. Obama left office. However, as is generally the case, the GCs were updated AFTER various countries had declared that cyber attacks could be considered such.
In the end, you don't act if you believe that it is likely that the consequences will be unacceptable. Ambiguity, therefore, almost always delays action.
"Presidents should never say never."
Most? It's not that hard to make the case that a neurotypical is generally incapable of the rigid adherence to rules that is needed to be an effective programmer. Even 20 years ago, there were public discussions that the bulk of programmers were actively slowing down their projects.
I turned Mr. Babbage's inability around, and the answer came immediately: these men saw a system to eliminate human error, and sought to understand the limits of its capacity. That they were not technical enough to be able to intuit the answer themselves wasn't much of a failure.
It is important to keep in mind that this IS the proper mindset for a C-level in the enterprise. Even the CTO.
That's two important EU components there. With the recent push for digital sovereignty (as I've been pushing for, here, for a decade), that looks like a really strong start. I hope they focus on broad EU adoption, as that would be a market more than big enough to get the vendors on board. It makes me a bit sad as a USian, but stability of the EU portion of the Internet benefits me as well. Furthermore, China has, in far too many cases, played games with BGP, so I think there is a really good chance that we would follow Europe on this one. Not that we would necessary lead the rest of the "Western" world, but I expect it would happen quickly.
Yeah, maybe not global in five years, from now, but certainly, the "Western" world picks it up within five years of EU adoption.
Agile is called agile because it is the continuous, methodical search to do things better. If anyone thinks or expect that proper agile is going to look the same in an unregulated industry verses a regulated one, for instance, they need to be kept far away from any decisions.
Yes, there are some pretty hard rules--like dropping features as needed to meet deadlines. Like setting aside weeks every few months for serious introspection.
Honestly, I don't know that I've ever seen a team that was clearly function with just these two criteria.
First, the relevant customers are in general not the poor cloud engineers, but the CTOs. They're going to perceive this quite differently.
Second, while the general point about self-contradictory behavior within large organizations in true, there are multiple larger issues in this case.
The first is that Glue itself is a misbegotten mess. It is MUCH better to run python scripts on redundant EC2 instances that to try to run glue, and cheaper, too, assuming that you are willing to shell out for a proper SWE to maintain the thing & that he is generally kept busy.
The second is that any vaguely competent ops team is going to see this kind of forced upgrade coming, and be aware of the issues months if not quarters in advance. The community should have been raising the roof on this well in advance. That they did not speaks of a substantial amount of what Larry Wall termed "false laziness".
The third is that the Glue team itself is, by your own reporting, five years behind here. That's not a right- vs left-hand problem. That's a blatant failure of a specific team to handle a known issue over a period of years. At best. At least as likely was that someone DID seriously ask "what could go wrong here?" There aren't any innocent answers to that question.
One of the core competencies of the Perfumed Palace is the adaptation of Business Speak to their particular use cases. I'm pretty certain that the answer in this case is "yes". If you are an actual war fighter, holding a siting tool of some sort, "servicing" means killing/disabling/destroying depending on the mission. If you are a unit HQ, it means sending missions until the objective is achieved. And if you are REALLY (self)-important, it means assigning a mission to a particular unit HQ.
Of course, last I heard, the grunts, at least, preferred "servicing". But then again, they haven't breathed in nearly so many fumes...
when reading up on the history of formal declarations of war after the elimination of UN-santioned Qasem Soleimani. Starting with the Quasi War (US & France, 1798-1800), and the First Barbary War (1801-1805), the US has prosecuted wars without a formal declaration of war by Congress. That article you linked appears to think that the history of the US started around 1914.
It was particularly noteworthy to me that on Sept 14th, after congress passed the infamous AUMF resolution, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D), held a press conference on the steps of the senate, with leaders of both parties in both houses and stated, "This is a declaration of war". Of course, he had to say it because it plainly was NOT. What it was was the latest in a two hundred year of tradition of the US congress formally authorizing the use of force without a proper declaration of war.
Sadly, the murder of innocent civilians of other nations has never really been enough to get countries to go to war. In this case, Iran was going gang busters on building cruise missiles capable of striking the entire Middle East and a good chunk of Europe. They also bragged that they had enough uranium ready to be able to quickly build eleven nuclear bombs.
President Trump barely mentioned them in the State of the Union address in order to lull the Iranian leadership. This apparently worked.