Re: JFC! do they actually test anything these days
Clearly they didn't even test it on their "latest and greats" Windows 10/11, which should be the absolute bare minimum of testing considering the size of the userbase.
3432 publicly visible posts • joined 11 Jun 2009
Afterwards you'll question why anybody has ever considered energy storage as a viable option because it's obviously bonkers.
No you won't. You'll come to the logical conclusion that, like so many other things in life, some parasite stands to make a fortune with their nose buried deep in the trough.
It doesn't need to scale well - most traders will commit these "special trades" with counterparties known to them personally not just any old spod in the market. When you're dealing with traders in certain markets that can deal in size and/or have a greater freedom to trade you're down to a limited set of individuals. Whilst markets seem large most players know each other - you'd be surprised.
The hard part is how do you know that "Spazz69" is really a trader at Deutsche and not a kid in a basement, or a Russian bot, or an SEC agent ?
Pretty sure you'd use signal and confirm the contact personally when setting up using "Verify Safety Number" i.e. when you're out on the piss with the counterparty (at the start of the session for obvious reasons). At this point you're secure. If it changes you're alerted and you'd cease comms until re-confirmed.
This bit from the article is a bit interesting
Not allowing wired connections to computers or peripherals when the device is locked
Locked, or locked down? If it is just when locked then I'm pretty sure that is irrelevant as border security in most locations has the legally enforceable right to request you unlock the device.
The good thing about T & C for software is you don't have to read it, especially if you don't intend using the software. Also worth noting that the majority of EULAs etc are unenforceable outside the US as they generally infringe on the odd statutory right here and there.
but electricity consumption looks to the most likely reason
Why? I thought most of the big data centres were already mainly running from their own renewable power and storage as, given their size, this is signfiicantly cheaper than buying the power in and reduces the need to hedge.
Their savings are not your savings but their increased profits.
Not so. The company was only "happy" because they felt they had little other choice but to pay high bay area salaries to attract the required talent in an era where that location was all the rafe. If it now turns out they don't then why would they? They've opened themselves up to talent from all around the country that is no longer faced with the prospect of having to move to that neighbourhood, nor desires the beanbag filled breakout utopia.
Where I see the value in AI is to perform preliminary categorisation. In anything where there is a high workload for individuals - think some poor schmuck processing hundreds of forms a day - initial categorisation or second opinion (either AI checks user or user checks AI) can add value. You could have AI (or more just heuristic questioning) help in triage to prevent options being missed. AI replaces user is stupid though.
Seems fair enough, deliberately sabotaging popular widely distributed libs isn't much different to locking someone up who threatens to burn house down after lighting some small fires
Errr, it's their code. GitHub just effectively issued a big fuck you to the open source community. Your code is no longer your code. Best move on.
I mean, you can absolutely take that stance, but then you lose the right to complain when a committer goes rogue, breaks all your stuff, and you're getting chewed out by your boss because your system is down and you have no idea how to fix it because its all cobbled together with third-party code and. no support.
But that only happens if you're an idiot that pulls latest versions and doesn't test. If you're happy with v1.0, it works, and you don't need to move on then there's no issue. If you do then you comprehensively test right?
Even if code is used without modification if it is redistributed the source has to be made available.
That sounds to me like "if it is used in a product that is distributed to others" i.e. to catch software vendors. However if I'm a multi-billion dollar enterprise and I use the library internally and it helps me keep the money rolling in this means I am under no obligation as I have redistributed nothing. To me that sounds like the situation in the story.
Part of the problem will be that the people in the business most adept at managing risk will have zero knowledge, view, or oversight over this area of risk. Most people's view of IT is "works or doesn't" and they don't want to know how the sausage gets made. Most devs are under time pressure to get work out for people that don't understand "quick or properly, choose one" and will therefore add to the fragility either knowingly or not. The modern world is unfortunately built on short-termism.
To me there's two sides. It makes no sense as a business to pay for something you can get for free. The developer's real mistake is the level of support they've offered the product for no cost. A business will think "good on you, keep the updates coming". On the other hand it makes little sense as a business to utterly rely on something which may contain a critical flaw that may not get fixed once discovered because the developer has got the pox with freeloaders. Given the source code is available businesses may be willing to ride that roller-coaster based upon previous developer support. It is also a short-term view vs a long-term view and most planning is decidedly in the short-term camp as it fits with rewards.
About the only extremely rich individual who got to where he is by sheer slog would be Warren Buffet, who has dedicated his life to investing money.
Hmmmm, not so. In my opinion the world's greatest inside trader. Do major companies allow you to look through their books and deepest darkest cupboards at your behest before investing i.e. non-public information? No. Warren does though.