Now, where have I heard that before? Oh, right, Microsoft after they got catastrophically hacked due to sheer incompetence and not caring. And then they got catastrophically hacked a few times more, also due to sheer incompetence and not caring.

My take is that if some organization claims "Security is our top priority", they are attempting to use the "Big Lie" technique (https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBig_lie) because they do not care about security at all and know they have massively screwed up without being able to fix the root causes. Hence they lie. That works the sames as the "New!" and "Improved!" banners on products that have just been made worse, smaller and more expensive. And tons of idiots fall for it.

On the plus side, it has just become a bit more obvious why having AI "coders" is a really dumb idea.

Whether or not they are used in the future is irrelevant to the current problem of patches being submitted that contain AI generated code. The point is to identify potentials threats, not make a declaration of the future.

Yep, stupid people will make the same dumb mistakes again and again once an opportunity presents itself.

DNSSec does not do encryption. It adds signatures. Other than that, I tend to agree with you here.

You use BIND? Well. That is maybe not the best idea.

Agreed. If you need to rely on DNS being secure, you typically have already failed. The security of modern IT infrastructure is overall abysmally bad enough for DNS to be a tiny piece of the puzzle.

And there you outed yourself as completely clueless idiot. The halting problem is proven to be unsolvable.

That they are "already" used is not a reliable indicator that this will continue. Two braincells required to understand that though.

The Jewish gods is not a loving god. He's a real dick but also a legalistic pendant, so as long as you stick strictly to the letter of the law you won't get turned into a pillar of salt or blocked forever from the promised land.

I don't know how dangerous the good myth is. I suspect not very. Many awful things have been done in the name of religion, but that's just an excuse. People are going to be dicks to each other, and certain people are capable of whipping up crowds to do horrendous things. Those rabble rousers will use religion of its there or something else if it's not, because gods aren't really a part of it. They are good at tapping into the unpleasant instincts of enough people.

Ama mane people have been advised by religious organisations, but I think that's just bog standard abuse of power. If power structures exist, people will abuse them.

I'm an atheist but the way, but I think human nature is the problem. Assholery finds a way. It'll use any excuse it can find, god or no god.

Correct. Your highly acidic reaction to news about Tesla made your feelings quite evident. My issue is that you have taken this feeling it applied it universally to everything related. What you are doing is utilizing emotional logic which is not recommended as it is the root cause of most suffering throughout history.

Quite the opposite. While I dislike him, I don't care about him and I encourage you to do the same because he's not worth the effort. That said, you are free to impugn him as much as you like but please be honest in your points.

That's my point, you're letting your hatred of him is seeping into everything related to him. Specifically, you care a LOT about him.

We will have truly solved the Year 2038 problem with six years to spare!

Why should nations bother to have laws in the first place if some people violate them?

There is no clear basis for this assertion, especially when applied to real-wold machines, rather than hypothetical machines with an infinite number of bits and storage. Presently, the halting-problem is one of many unsolved problems but that doesn't mean it is an unsolvable problem.

It appears that you have conflated my support of identifying AI-assisted patches as being in support of people making AI-assisted patches, which is not the case. What I do recognize is that people will use it, so it's better that we know when they do. Reread my post.

Friend, come on. It's a cargo container. At least seven, maybe even 10.

A simple image search of "retro-futuristic diner" shows that multiple sources envision similar appearances which means the name of aesthetic is accurate.

If you dislike the aesthetic then that is OK but don't let your dislike of Elon Musk alter your perspective of reality.