quotemstr

Right. Our food staples, and especially barley, wheat, rice, and potatoes all produce more calories per acre at higher CO2 concentrations. That's because RuBisCO is a terrible enzyme that only barely works and photosynthesis works better the more CO2 you feed it.

Now, you could argue that this climate model or that climate model increase net productivity once you take into account land use patterns, population shifts, blah blah blah. You can make these models say whatever you want them to say. Truth is, biomechanically, more CO2 means higher yields with same inputs on the same land, and we are very good at making land suitable for agriculture.

Malware authors are also software developers, product managers. It's adorable to see them do the things other software developers and product managers do.

Just like it's amusing that Osama bin Laden reviewed Al Qaeda expense report and these expense reports look just like ones anyone else would file.

  Expense: two burgers and fries
  Price: $15.50
  Vendor: Five Guys
  Cost center: SRE, department of evil
  Business purpose: observability meetup, k8s brownbag

The lead generation pipeline the Talos people are using is actually decently competent. I wouldn't fail them in an interview.

Agriculture is CO2-limited and would improve in yield with a somewhat hothouse climate.

Nah. For centuries up to the 1850s, climate was looking pretty dicy. The little ice age, had it gone on, might have represented a return a big ice age.

The heroic efforts of early industrialists adding carbon to the atmosphere avoided this calamity and set us up with a level of comfy and productive climate unknown in the quaternary.

Amazing how humanity keeps lucking out like this.

This would never have happened with a BDFL

Python is pretty decent. What are you talking about?

You'll sleep easier if you think of the graph label as "vulnerability removals"

Deliberately keeping people ignorant doesn't help either

Cowards.

The way to stop the vulnerability apocalypse is to fix the vulnerabilities, not to shoot the damn messengers.

I hope someone abliterates and FTs this model on vulnerability discovery so we can find more bugs in our testing, insecure tech stacks.

Any particular compromise might not be published. But 70% of the internet is vulnerable. Even with a low reporting rate, wouldn't you expect to see something?

If Satan himself proves a theorem, is it nevertheless a true theorem? Claims are either true or they are false. There is no such thing as an evil truth. Where are the breaches?

Everyone has evidence of widespread exploit attempts. I totally believe that there are widespread attempts. Where are the compromises?

> And who exactly is Elias Taylor

A human being, presumably. But he could be a dog or a diffusion model and I wouldn't care, because arguments stand on their own. There is no special caste of people who alone have permission to propose ideas.

You advocate critical thinking. Excellent. Can you critically evaluate "Elias Taylor"'s argument?

This is from the people who make mandatory protobuf fields "optional".

I just fundamentally disagree with Google on how to evolve data structures. Sloppy open-domain protobuf field presence, enum values, whatever are illusory extension points. Better to have discrete versions of a data structure --- Foo1, Foo2, Foo3, etc., and rigid checking in each one than to have just one "Foo" with optional-everything that changes implicitly over time.

I'd best get started with the RFC now then