This story really isn't about PHP. It's about AI easily finding multiple severity-9+ externally-exploitable server-side vulnerabilities without even breaking a sweat.

Over the next few months, this same story is going to repeat for Ruby, ASP, Python, Node (or JS in general), .Net, etc. And not all of them will be so easily fixed - Or for that matter, disclosed at all prior to a working exploit in the wild.

Running a public-facing webserver is about to become the losing side of an inevitable arms race.

LPT: Peacefully protesting is not illegal in the US. Guess who this will be primarily used against?

That said, this is the same LRAD system that the military unequivocally promised would never be used inside the US or against civilians. The same LRAD system that failed spectacularly when field-tested in Iraq against so-called "insurgents". It's trivially defeated by any amount of metal (e.g. tinfoil hats really do work against it), rain or even high humidity, plastic sheets more than a few mils thick, wet cloth - Basically anything except bone-dry thin woven fabric is substantially effective at blocking it.

So of course, they'll just crank up the power and actually cook innocent bystanders, but let's be honest, we all know they'll do that even if it worked spectacularly well, because cruelty is the point, and 11 is more cruel than 10.

The time has come when a full-body faraday cage is required gear for any serious protestor - So naturally, we should fully expect wearing anti-static clothing to a protest to become a felony as soon as police realize their intended victims aren't squirming in pain enough to sate their sadism.

Respectfully, that's not what banning "tasks that require significant effort or time, or would typically be performed by a cleaner" means. Unlisted ad-hoc requirements have been prohibited all along (though admittedly, not well enforced).

AirBNB / VRBO / whatever gets a cut of every dollar. They benefit from junk fees, and couldn't care less except to the extent it costs them customers or risks incurring regulatory oversight - And basic cleaning has been a pretty standard clause right from the beginning (albeit there's a legitimate concern over hosts double-dipping).

Some folks would prefer to repair the toilet they have than run away to use the neighbor's.

If you're just fine with living in a cesspit, though, you do you.

I think everyone is missing the real story here.

This has nothing to do with taking out the garbage, and everything to do with making it impossible to be an "absentee landlord" (or at least hiring a cleaning service)

And it's a much needed change! Far too many deadbeats pick up a literally-condemnable shack in a touristy area and think they can just list and ignore it. It's easy to ghost someone over email, not so easy when your renters are in your face demanding the toilet work ASAP.

The surveys my company sends out really are anonymous, insofar as they don't contain a tracking ID and don't ask for a name.

They do, however, ask for our site and our job title. Which would be just fine if I was Engineer #81 of 200 working out of corporate HQ. Instead, our job titles are unusually specific - Mine is basically "$Teamname Engineer 3", of which there are only two in the entire company, and we're based out of different satellite offices (we're all remote, so my "site" is just the company's largest physical office in my state - A whopping 12 people on-site, maybe 50 including remote workers).

So is it anonymous? Technically yes, functionally no.

I fly 200ish flights a year so figure 70-80 nights away.

2025 was 100% hotels but 2019 was about 80% Airbnbs.

Airbnb will never get my business back. Ever. The professional scammer hosts are so good at finding a way to nail me for a fee. Iâ(TM)ve taken perfect check out video and still had to spend hours fighting fees.

Airbnb allowed making guests do it.

They lost so much money to hotels theyâ(TM)re banning hosts from requiring it.

No argument, but none of that was on trial. They didn't lose because they largely ignore hate speech, misinformation, bots, etc - All of which are basically legal except in very specific contexts (licensed professional advice, incitement to violence). They lost because they lied about user privacy and their efforts at moderation.

This isn't apologia, but it's an important distinction to keep in mind. The first amendment is an effective defense of the content itself; it's not a defense against deceiving their customers and regulators. So why am I writing this? Because Zuck's appeal to 1A is merely another lie - Whether this stands or is eventually reduced on appeal, he's already spinning the PR away from the blunt fact of "we lost because lied", to the far squishier "Meh, moderation is hard, so sue us - Oh wait, you did LOL".

Great question! Just convince the 34-time Felon in Chief to obey the Epstein Files Transparency Act of December 2025, and maybe we'll have an answer.

You're barking up an empty tree here - I'm no fan of Biden, but the Executive didn't have the power to ignore the judicial seal from March 2013 through January 2024, when they were ordered unsealed for Giuffre's case (pity she conveniently ate a bullet before it could affect the election). Not coincidentally, January 2024 (under Biden) coincides with the first substantial release, followed by progressively more throughout 2024 as the data could be verified; and continued to be released in batches, right up through inauguration day when undeniable financial records were finally on the table, and instantly squashed by the incoming administration.

Meanwhile, the Executive also can't just ignore acts of Congress, such as the Epstein Files Transparency Act; yet here we are still debating "why" the files haven't been released as ordered.

Do you really want to compare the right's evidence-free hit-piece against Clinton against hundreds of thousands of pages of in this debate? But hey, whaddya know, it looks like Clinton is mentioned extensively in the Epstein files. If only POTUS would obey Congress and release them all, you might finally get to take down Slick Willy! Good! Lock all of the pedo trash up, but maybe let's at least start with the diaper fouling the Oval Office before we head back to dredging the swamps of Arkansas..

The word "DAC" is conspicuously missing from this press release. Every single detail I quoted only applies to the 1-2cm between the DAC and the jack (or if we're willing to hold crappy aftermarket headphones against Sony, maybe 2m in total between DAC and ears).

People are responding to my comment like we're talking about end-to-end high-entropy multi-GHz signals. Comparing the human auditory range with modern ultra-high-speed DACs, we may as well be talking about DC for all the difference it makes.

We don't disagree about DACs - The one relevant component Sony was suspiciously silent about.

As for the rest - If they have such serious signal degradation between the DAC and the jack, I stand by my assertion that it's fundamentally broken by design. Keep in mind we're talking about mere kilohertz signals traveling under two meters, this ain't exactly trying to squeeze 10 gig over 100m of UTP. If there's still significant jitter on the outputs half a million cycles later, I repeat, "design flaw".

"Key components made from oxygen-free copper" are irrelevant to "uncompromising [digital] sound quality".

"Screws featuring a low-resistance gold-plated treatment" are irrelevant to "providing a stable ground connection that delivers powerful [digital] bass, an expansive [digital] soundstage and smooth, extended [digital] high frequencies".

"Carefully-milled slabs of copper" are irrelevant to "improved [digital] sound".

C'mon Sony, do better! At least in the analog world nobody could disprove the audiophiles' ridiculous superstitions. Digital, however, is either mathematically flawless, or fundamentally broken by design. There is no "better" or "worse" - Well, at least not until you run it over Bluetooth, which takes all of the above as a challenge to make it worse.

The famously creepy birthday card was from 2003, making it clear they were already sharing "a wonderful secret" prior to 2004.

Please explain how a 2007 tiff led to a 2004 break-up. And for the record, every account except Orange Daddy's describes that tiff as involving Epstein poaching the... uh... "enigmas" from Mar-a-Lago.

As for Maxwell... You don't find it just a wee bit curious she made that claim after an off-the-record meeting with Blanche? Immediately following which she - by complete coincidence, of course - mysteriously got a transfer and became (according to fellow inmates) the de-facto princess of Club Fed?

And looking into the future and predicting your demand for evidence - We agree completely! Congress even passed a law demanding the release of exactly that evidence, which Trump's DOJ instead spent months and millions redacting the names of billionaires while, oopsie, forgetting to redact the victims' names.

Say, remind me again - Why would anyone stonewall the release exonerating evidence?

What can a $2000 phone do that a $200 phone can't (gimmicks like folding screens or ruggedized aside)?

You mentioned in another comment IT folks are surprisingly fine with "clunkers" - But in my experience the simple explanation is, performance is not a metric by which most IT folks measure phones. The speed of a phone is utterly irrelevant. We have gaming rigs at home that would probably violate ITAR if taken out of the country; we have dedicated VMs at work with so much horsepower the underlying hardware must have cost a substantial fraction of our annual salary. Why do we also need a supercomputer in our pocket at all times?

I use my phone for email, SMS/IM, light web browsing to look something up in a pinch, GPS when I'm not in my car, and cheesy games while waiting for an appointment. Occasionally I watch a YouTube video or the like, and have yet to see a stutter not caused by the network itself. All of that works perfectly fine on a $100-200 phone. The primary metric I do care about is battery life (and maybe storage to a lesser extent); and on that axis, weaker (but still modern) CPUs often have significantly longer battery life.

Now, I realize I've given you an easy "must be nice to be you" here, and I'll admit that if everyone else is approaching this from the perspective of "this is my only computer", I can appreciate wanting somewhat beefier hardware. But again, we're talking about blowing $2k on one of these; just get a decent laptop and a cheap phone, and it'll still be an infinitely better user experience.