Or more than one? I don't count M-X Doctor.

I suspect that this would be more tedious(and potentially less flattering); but you'd think that the metric you'd really care about for the juche-computer would be component availability.

Going by cost is interesting if you are trying to get the attention of balance-of-trade types and tariffs and dumping hawks; but it's an almost perfectly wrong measure if you are trying to catch any "oops, turns out that only the Chinese vendors so hungry they are considering offshoring to Vietnam still make a random passive or unexciting tolerances switching IC because it's a zero-margin part with no real room for differentiation that everyone who could got out of years ago" type situations.

If it's a real, drop-dead, 'national security' problem some of those are probably less serious, if there's a much fancier TI part that is overkill for the job but could be subbed in for only 3-4 factors of ten more; but if you want to keep economically viable civilian production open or it doesn't have a direct upmarket analog that could get really awkward; even if you've ensured that all the fancy logic ICs, copper, and gold are geopolitically friendly.

That's basically the Nexperia story, slightly simplified. Philips decided to private equity semiconductors generally; NXP decided to shove a bunch of the boring parts out to WingTech; then 'oops' European manufacturers who need diodes and ESD protection parts they thought were cheap jellybean stuff have cars piling up on the line because they can't get them.

Obviously losing a really cutting edge capability isn't preferred; but it's also the sort of thing that people notice because those tend to be pretty valuable; while low and middling capabilities, including ones that are sophisticated enough that you can't just throw money at restoring them fast, are things that are voluntarily surrendered because getting rid of low margin products makes line go up.

It is a bit of a tricky set-up because you need to be in the same broadcast domain for DHCP. My guess would be that very few desktops do it these days, even though it can definitely be done.

No problem. This stuff has gotten way too complex.

Haha, no. My thinking was that oversized ICMP is so old and well-known that they would surely not make that mistake. Apparently I gave them far too much credit.

Hmm. Ok, it should do that during TFTP transfer. But since there are no logs and no real way to alert the user, it may be redundant.

That said, oversized ICMP is a _very_ old attack. Apparently the people doing this were really not good at secure coding. Oh, well, another example of high-profile incompetence for my students.

You missed the point.

A friend of mine made a tea-timer app for the iPhone. Where you enter what tea you are making and it sets the correct number of minutes. Today, people would ask ChatGPT before they go on the App Store to search for something like that. That's the point. Not what YOU would do, but what the general public does. And for Jane Doe, ChatGPT has replaced a lot of these specialty apps.

Skills are great until they aren't. The problem is exactly what you say: You can literally create a skill by telling the LLM to create a skill. Which is... why the f do I need to make a skill if the AI already knows how to do it?

Properly created skills, that include reference material, specific instructions, and expert knowledge the LLM doesn't have or that's buried somewhere under 10 layers of reddit posts is genuinely useful. But most skills aren't. I'm constantly underwhelmed by hyped-up skills that, when I look at them, turn out to be bland, basic instructions.

I am a bit surprised. I though at this time only complete idiots were still into crapcoins and irrational awe of the blockchain. Apparently not.

Any automaker not in EVs will not survive. I guess they finally accepted reality.

That really depends on a few things. A general statement like yours is not accurate.

So, skill-issue on the side of Apple. Interesting. Obviously, the cult-follower will deny their cult leaders could do anything wrong.

I looked at a few write-ups of CVE-2026-97631, but while they all mention PXE (and PXE uses DHCP, depending on configuration), none mentions ICMP. It would not make a lot of sense for the UEFI boot process to process ICMP packets either. Not ruling it out, people have done a lot of really stupid things with UEFI, but it does not seem to make a lot of sense here.

Does anybody know whether this is really ICMP? ICMP would could make this an attack potentially not local to the network segment, while DHCP and PXE make it network-segment local.

And put that below some factory in China?

Sorry for the joke, but the Headlines have gotten pretty bad here recently.

I agree. The "making everything scare" type of messaging (I will not elevate it by calling it "journalism") is a plague of our times. Essentially a form of slop.

That said, I do not think UEFI even processes ICMP. This is more likely about DHCP and that makes it a local-net only attack.