ori_b

LLMs can't count well.

If Uber is like most other companies, there's a leaderboard for AI tokens consumed. If maximizing your token usage is going to get you to the top of the leaderboard, and therefore promoted for "productivity", people are going to find creative ways to be "productive".

Yes, and just because someone else has been dumping trash in the woods doesn't mean you should.

That said, the social media feeds are so trash filled that I avoid them; it's extremely depressing opening up an incognito youtube and seeing what Google thinks will monetize well for an average consumer.

No . Both are offensive denial of service attacks on people's limited attention.

Yes, if you release the vulnerability as soon as possible, that's a good choice. If you have an embargo and make sure that fixes get out to users in a timely manner before ending the embargo, that's also a reasonable choice.

If you're going wait a month between landing the patch (possibly notifying attackers), but not notify the people who may get the patch to users, it seems like something was mishandled.

I'd also prefer immediate disclosure, but I don't get how waiting a month without telling anyone is good regardless of which side you land on.

I see, may the people who are responsible for the infrastructure you depend on be less concerned about shifting blame than you are.

I'm confused. Can you explain how this applies to the current situation, where no vuln reports were submitted to the groups responsible for distributing patches?

Mind explaining how sitting on it a month after the patch landed is 'faster'? To my mind, that's a month where attackers could analyze commit logs, but maintainers are not acting with urgency to ship fixes.

Really? It seems very odd to not check in on the status of the fixes, even if it's technically possible to pass the blame to other people.

Even if the only purpose of looking at the status to make yourself look good in marketing materials, it's surprising that it didn't happen.

...no shit? Why do you think people care about this issue?

Yes, it's just incompetence from everyone involved, not malice. The company making the disclosure doesn't actually care, and the kernel processes are ineffective.

If the maintainers were unresponsive, sure -- but it seems slightly hard to buy that a responsible reporter trying to make a big splash and a good impression wouldn't first check "did this make it out to the distros?" before making sysadmin's days real shitty, even if technically they could point fingers at other parties. At which point, if they're paying paying any attention at all to what they reported, they may have realized that a mistake was made.

But they didn't release immediately -- they waited a month, but forgot to tell the distros, and forgot to check if waiting a month had actually lead to distros picking up the patches and shipping them.

Imagine how much quicker the distros would have reacted if they were given a heads up a month ago. But, sure, I guess kudos to this company for not being actively criminal, and merely bumblingly incompetent and overly eager to get their marketing pitch out the door.

Patches are still in the process of landing in most major distros as of the time of this writing. Most users are not able to get an update through their distro's packaging mechanisms.

Basic care would involve making sure the patches had made it into the wild before ending the embargo, and nagging the relevant parties if not.

Edit: As of this writing, most distros including Redhat, Fedora, Debian Stable, do not have patches available in the package repos, though they're being actively worked on.

Or a/b testing.

It's not. Invariably, the code is locally fine and globally nonsense.

What does your investor expect as far as returns, and how are they going to get it?

Note the lack of concrete numbers on how much they have scaled. Somebody may have just asked an LLM for projections.

You can cancel the migration, no need for sunk cost fallacy.

Slop

I don't think it should be socially acceptable to perform a denial of service attack on people's attention.

I genuinely find chess pretty uninteresting. I kill some time with it occasionally, I guess, but like gaming in general, I could never get into it, not when there are puzzles with unknown answers out there.

Because it's already doing an OK job. Like it was coding 2 years back.

I'm not optimistic enough to say that it'll never get better.

Chess is boring; it's been solved. I'm not really looking forward to a future where the only thing I get to do is play with toys while waiting for the AI to refill the cat food bowl.

> and spend more time on the parts of the job that actually matter i.e. framing problems, making tradeoffs, spotting risks, creating clarity, and producing original insight.

What makes you think AI won't do those parts of the job? Either AI stops improving, or it will replace thinking.