With proper auditing, you can use NPM just fine, pin a specific version

So Insecure by default then.

What we really need is to have catered repos which default to a pinned version, instead of requiring the user to pin one. And the version pin does not update until that version has been audited by a sufficient number of trusted authorities.

If no version has been audited and pinned, then new packages should simply be unavailable to anyone who is not running in a "dangerous insecure mode"

I mean that some system of package review is obviously necessary for all updates, and that which has not been reviewed should not be available. Otherwise it's worse than geocities -- a convenient malware distribution channel.

Yeah, people seem to forget that this is also a guy who constantly parked in handicap spots even while he was perfectly healthy just because he thought that he was more important than everyone else and shouldn't have to walk as much. And when the started getting tickets for it, he would just lease a new car every few months just to he could drive around without a license plate.

On the other hand...a nice way to 'hack' the system...

and today, when everyone at their goat has a handicapped tag drives up in a jacked up jeep or F150 or vette and hops out of the handicapped place looking just fine....why not.

It's now vanity parking for most folks out there these days it seems....

Sure, capitalism may suck in many ways...

But it's still FAR better than anything else out there to choose from.....we've seen that vividly over history....

Since it is a 'female' AI that's doing the acting...shouldn't the term be "actress"...?

There's a difference between a "hazardous protein" and a "protein that doesn't cause damage until three generations into the future."

Eh? What about a protein that 3 generations into the future causes Production of a related protein that obliterates all life on the planet.
I would say these 3rd generation cases Cannot be safely ignored.

Given the program that takes inputs vector x named P(x); write a function f(x) such that f(P) is true if and only if P halts for all possible inputs.

The only difference is we're asked.. given a protein that interactions with molecules vector x named -- P(x). Write a function such that f(P) returns true if and only if P for all possible inpuit vectors is not capable of causing a catastrophic failure or serious impediment upon a complex biological process resulting in the Injury to, Or loss of any basic senses or intelligent capacity, or the end of the life to a human organism.

Perhaps you should put your Proteins in a simulator of some kind and require the simulations run through without simulated biologies or ecosystems dying before allowing the designed proteins as a design.

You'd think, if someone is managing a group of detectives, they would be regularly discussing progress on their cases

I would say not. They should stop trying to micromanage detectives and their work flows, as that is only to frustrate them.
Detectives are senior mental workers much like writers, or designers in certain engineering, or art fields.

They are bound to spend a lot of time on the clock making no progress at all, And in addition spend a lot of time thinking while not on the clock, in the shower, etc, the subconcious organizes thoughts when conditions are right -- which can be attributable to 90% of the progress you ever can even get. Which kind of also means that having them log hours or monitoring their computer usage as some kind of proxy to amount of work done, is also complete bullshit. Especially for any detectives who may have to go out into the field and look at places to stimulate their intuitive senses sufficiently to come back and make progress. There are necessary activities for thought workers which can't be categorized as work by corporate standards, but which are necessary to the process. Including being lazy and procrastinating from time to time. The keyjamming is not necessarily a flaw - for all we know they may be a high-performing detective within a system that has ignorant executive management and stupid policies.

One does not Ping Sherlock holmes or Fox Mulder, every 4 hours for a status update on his thought process, or even every day for that matter. One does not harass the graphics designer every hour about when they are going to get past their art block on creating such and such, and forward movement, etc. You wait, and as professionals it is upon them to report once they are organized and ready to report.

The progress on cases is a glacial thing; even with hardworking detectives--you don't more regularly have progress to discuss, than perhaps a monthly or bi-weekly update on case files they've taken. If the day is spent reading reports and other necessary activities: most of the time they simply won't have anything to give you. It also does not make sense for a detective to write reports about reports. And as a mental discipline the detectives would need time to organize their thoughts. It's not a good idea to disrupt peoples' workflows and ask for them to make extra reports just to have a proof that they are working. Reports like that do not cause progress, and quite the opposite. More unnecessary work and a slowing down the process is the result of inserting additional problems for the detectives to solve.

Also; I don't believe controlling where the detectives work is a solution to this problem -- the whole keylogger thing or caring about where they work shows a misguided approach. Th detectives are presumably just as likely to spend time pretending to read reports while goofing off at a central office.

This should not necessarily be a huge deal either. Progress can be stalled on many cases for reasons that are outside detectives' controls.

Fresh leads may be lacking. Those forensic samples the labs are going take months to get back can be pivotal to the direction of the cases, etc. Detectives are going to be appraised eventually by whether or not they solve the cases, and how many they do manage to close. That is where the performance measurements exist, And it is the detectives' jobs to make certain they deliver. A detective's manager's jobs is not to micromanage detectives' case work,

Police detectives tend to not work "a beat", but instead a selection of cases. Reviewing paperwork from the field can easily take up most of their time. They could have to be reading like a hundred witness statements to try to figure out what actually happened, most likely, who's lying, and why. Collaborating testimony with other evidence, reviewing security camera footage, reading test results - DNA, fingerprint, drug, residue, etc... Deciding whether or not there's enough evidence to try for a warrant or the UK's equivalent. Following up with witnesses, scheduling interviews, etc...

We'll be fine, then. There's lots more gold than Sarah Conner clones.

Precisely.

There are 1500 genes involved. As effects are likely not merely down to specific genes, but gene interactions, you're going to need a model that can handle 2^1500 different permutations. That's simply not something that is classifiable.

As far as gene therapies are concerned, since autism seems to involve combining elements of Neanderthal neurology with homo sapiens neurology, the obvious fix would be to add further Neanderthal genes where combinations are known to produce adverse effects.

What did you expect from an algorithm named after the Roman Empire?

Doesn't reading Slashdot articles count as reading?

In fact.. Not only are we reading here, but we are writing here as well. Guess we are amongst the dinosaurs in modern society... We're supposed to be glued to TikToks and Youtube shorts. Makes us more controllable by the government.

.Flying objects that can't detect stationary obstacles that size shouldn't be flying.

Human-piloted aircraft cannot reliably detect them either. Unless the cranes have proper markings and lighting, they can be very difficult to see from the air and are a menace to all aviation, not just drones. On the other hand; Human-piloted aircraft would also not be flying that low other than during takeoff or landing. Formerly only structures more than 200' above ground had to be specially marked and lighted, but under new FAA regulations anything above 50 feet has to be marked, so there can be an argument that the cranes are to blame If they haven't been cleared.

This is not proven an issue with the drone until they finish the investigation. It may very well be the crane ended up lacking the proper beacons to identify the hazard to aviation.