SexyVetra

AMD is always hiring devrel. You get to fanboy, travel, vaguely consult on a bunch of cool titles before they come out, and it pays way better than actual gamedev. Same goes for all the other hardware manufacturers, as well as engine and Middleware companies. (Also yacht parties and drama if you swing it right)

I think you're talking botting where I'm talking hacking. With botting, you're right you do need "AI" where AI is the old heuristics and state machines AI. I still think anyone calling this AI in 2024 deserves to get clowned on. (And which I concede is not you).

Lol

It STILL is impossible to verify everything server side unless you have a crazy powerful adaptive AI engine the likes of which still don't exist today and you need to scale that for hundreds of thousands of concurrent players.

Serverside anti-cheat requires AI

You need to go out in the world (where the trees don't have pixels) and learn about this stuff if you want to be in this field / pretend to argue about it. Instead you've conflated the facts that other people are telling you (this is a hard problem that takes effort) with the corpo propaganda (It's expensive so It's impossible)

Also: Your llama-based waifu is not real. Good luck with your chat bot addiction.

You wish the CEO of a company would harass you?

You wish a CEO would give general denials and the same non-answers you see in a comment thread while pretending to engage with you in good faith?

Fuck off, the CEO gave no new info or perspectives and just showed himself to be the asshole that recent emerging evidence had been showing he was.

Not OP. Used Linux since the late 90s. My daily driver is NixOS. GUI here is synonymous with TUI.

What about GUIs appeals to you over a command line?

I like the GUI because I can see what options the tool can execute in this state. I don't have to pass --help to grep or keep several man page sections open. The machine knows what it's capable of and I direct it.

With CLIs I feel like I'm always relearning tools. Even something as straightforward as 'enable a flag' has different syntax. Is it -flag? --flag? --enable-flag? Oh look, a checkbox.

Not to say that I think a window environment is best for all things. When using an IDE, I have the terminal open constantly. Programmers are as bad at visual interfaces as they are module interfaces. If no UX designer was involved in displaying complex data or situations, I'm likely to try to fall back to the commandline. Just that - when there are GUI tools I tend to prefer them over an equivalent CLI tool.

tl;dr GUIs can represent the current state of a complex process and provide relevant context, instead of requiring the user to model that information (with large error bars for quality of the UI).

Anyway, I hope you take this in good humor and at least consider a TUI for your next project.

This comment really crystallizes your nerd subtype. I may be a [6] but you from arguing with you, ya sound cute 💜

Enjoy your selfhosting journey!

I am annoying, but something being low-risk and not effecting most customers doesn't make it a "false positive".

"A liar who lies repeatedly won't be believed" is definitely equivalent to "A company conservatively warned that one of their products was dangerous in some specific situations."

Hanging out with you sounds really fun.

lol and you said you weren't big mad.

It’s not a matter of “less or more information[...]”

Escalating every such bug [...] would quickly drown out notices that people actually care about.

If your argument is that a specific class of security bugs aren't worth CVEs, then make that argument. Instead, you're saying the CVE isn't valid and making an argument about the risk assessment and development lifecycle (as if those aren't part of a CVE) and not the class of security bug.

I have, this entire time, said it's a valid CVE that you don't care about and that you shouldn't be working as a cybersecurity professional. You have conceded the first point and continued to demonstrate the later.

"Uh, no. The CVE is valid, but it's not about that." You say, scrambling. "The dev cycle! It was already scheduled for release, so it's not necessary to disclose. If everyone disclosed security bugs, we'd have too much information and we wouldn't be able to filter for the notices we care about." You retort, not realizing that you had already conceded that this wasn't about the fact you didn't care about the CVE, and instead arguing that less information is better rather than building tools to cope with the number of CVEs that are increasing regardless of their relevance to you personally.

"Frivolous" "Frivolous" "Frivolous"

Is it because it's a DOS? No. That's valid.

Feature off by default? No, that still warrants CVE.

Feature labeled Beta or Experimental? Nope, still warranted.

You must be one of those newcomers big mad F5 now has control of the record and you can't pad your cv.

Girl, you're saying you trust software that documents security vulnerabilities that don't apply to you less than one that doesn't document those vulnerabilities?

A CVE isn't a black mark on a projects reputation.

Because of the way you misused terms, I'm guessing you're not particularly familiar with cybersecurity. It's an ever more important field for sysadmins and devs. I recommend taking the time to learn more.