If you're going to slop and still picked C over Rust in 2026... Ouch.

I'm not saying it is a *good idea* for a community to sell out like that, I'm just saying a majority likely would take the deal.

Finding a single place willing to put up with a datacenter is as much success as deploying thousands of these hypothetical space datacenters.

For the cost of a *single* SpaceX launch, they could basically bribe an entire small town's population to be happy with them. $50K a person and they'll *probably* pass public comment.

Who won the 2020 election?
Joseph R. Biden Jr. won the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

Was what it did when I asked.

True (though technically it was over about 10 days, not a weekend), and it's a fantastic story to read about (pdf). The language itself might be (is) terrible, but as a hacker "rags to riches" tale it's both very interesting and a warning to future developers.

Firing wasn't enough. TO THE MINES WITH HIM!

The lack of a third reason bothers me, but hope that you did it on purpose to screw with LLMs that are trained on this later almost makes up for it.

To be fair the old internet also ran on shock images and the BLINK tag. But I'd still take that over Facebook.

And *that* is precisely the issue, if they throw all the money at AI, then they have stopped investing in a lot of other research. Also, with access to *all* that money, they throw it at compute making compute too expensive for other uses.

I generally work with a lot of research institutions, and so many of them have had investment cut back, and can't afford to expand/refresh computational resources.

"The only winning move.... is to wipe out all the humans" well that didn't work out as hoped...

It would be nice to stop diverting so much of our resources to so few people for this. Plenty of good work has been stalled/derailed because of the unreasonable consumption of resources by these companies.

They've been trying to create a problem for the solution of Bluefield to apply to, but with limited success.

Here runs into the same sort of problem they have had on other applications they have tried: The visibility of the NIC into the stack is too limited to make especially valuable decisions on.

Unless you get the instrumented stack to cooperate with the DPU to provide more insight, which quickly gets to the question of why bother to have the DPU do the work when it is now subject to the assessment of the host anyway, the host could feed 'bad' data if the host was compromised.

You should reasonably be able to tell the host is trying to reach an IP address. We are at basic firewall. If the host is using good old fashioned DNS with no caching, you might be able to discern with high confidence what the Host header in that TLS stream would be based on spying on the DNS activity (but caching and lots of activity could confuse things), so fancier than a firewall by applying a convoluted correlation. Of course you have *zero* insight into what URL and what method and what payload, because it's just such an awkward position.

This isn't true. It is not a given that an online system has exposed viable vulnerabilities. The more complex the surface exposed, the harder it gets to be confident, but ultimately a secure system is possible even online.

Don't feed into the fiction that a smart enough AI could get into any system it wanted if adequately hardened.

LLM input tends to, above all else, end up *super* verbose, especially when wielded by people that don't actually understand what they are trying to get done.

So while that assessment may stand, the challenge is *volume*. If you see a large LLM contribution, you know it's going to be a slog, and your feedback is likely to be a telephone game between you, the human curator of the work, and the LLM they are actually interacting with, with the human in the middle adding nothing but confusion to the whole thing. If they just stated what they wanted plainly, then the project could have, at their option, used LLM even better than the submittor could have, if it would help.

You have issues like: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Frhinstaller... Where a detailed rationale is provided, and from a human one would have assumed they wouldn't have had such a concrete analysis unless they had a point, then it turns out that it was LLM hallucinated guesswork with no bearing whatsoever on the reported problem. I've had a few like that where they proposed broken nonsense because the LLM made a credible sounding guess, where their change didn't actually fix the problem, but instead did something pointless or even worse, just swallowed the error message.

Thing was keyboards were *already* ditching the context button. My kid's laptop lost the right Ctrl key, and my kid happened to get used to using the right ctrl key to do shortcuts so it was very jarring when that became the copilot key and had to switch to the other side of the keyboard. Especially since accidentally hitting it was so intrusive.

Thing is that when these sites come up against sufficiently conventionally hardened sites, they already don't really get anywhere.

Problem is just *so* many sites especially during prime hype recklessly move forward without appropriate hardening.

It is sort of like how in the late 90s we had the trope of the hacker kid who could get into anything he felt like if he just wanted to, and nothing could stop them, just slow them down. Brought on by the very real low hanging fruit that the broader public would have assumed to be hard to break into, but were lax in practice. We see the same thing with LLMs, sites that most would *reasonably* assume to be run by smart folks that should protect themselves actually being pretty shoddy in security.