rotis

He has already IT experience then. Surely he learned something out of it. Securely using apps. Discretely handling deals, etc.

Anyway from their webpage: > We work directly with heads of state, ministries, national cyber authorities, and the senior officials responsible for executing national strategy.

So I presume he has and provides contacts. Just the usual one hand washes the other. Nothing nefarious I'm sure.

Matryoshka you say?

Are you saying even these recent pelican pictures are not good? Vector graphics aren't meant to be photorealistic I don't think. For what they are they seem pretty good already to me. You can easily describe what is in the picture.

Azerbaijan is a former soviet republic. So them playing role of a proxy for Russia or stealing secrets to sell to Russians makes sense to me.

Maybe we should use legion as a collective noun for vulnerabilities. Like murder of crows or school of fish. Would signal the urgency no matter the actual number or impact...

Maybe it's just a secret cabal of rogue agents downloading LibreOffice for no particualr reason whatsoever? I mean there is a precedent already: those fellas hijacked some poor wiki.

In many (most?) companies it also takes nontrivial amount of time to patch potentially affected systems. In my company half IT department got recently an email that we need to urgently patch all Windows servers because of some critical CVE. I checked it. The description was maybe 3 lines and it said this affected domain controllers only. I raised this with security team and they said that in this case we don't need to patch everything. Now if we had to do this, it would force us to spend nontrivial time on unplanned patching. That this in itself disorganizes our operations can not be ignored. So comparatively me doing some legwork and checking the CVE was trivial effort and saved a lot of busywork for the department as a whole. That time we got lucky.

Later on he gives an example of Blackboard software that was very disliked. So I don't see what was unique in his perspective either. To me this article is not very focused and feels mostly like rambling. The core idea that we get accustomed to bugs/quality in software we use is sound. Just the article needs streamlining or better a complete rewrite.

Sure. I don't give a damn about them. But Phil Collins man. I love reviewing his body of work before I get worked up. Obvously we cannot cut him, because I need him. So how do you decide what to leave out?

I have problems reconciling this story with the Amazon one from few days ago. If we take both for truth doesn't that basically imply Amazon researchers got scared by the ‘Fix this code’ prompt first and then spooked the feds? Shouldn't we make fun of those researchers first? I don't know. I feel there lies a lie somewhere in the open.

Agentic engineering? Vibe coding? That is so yesterday. Chain-of-thought flow is where it is at now. You heard it here first folks. Early examples of such phenomena include Rube Goldberg machines