nandeEbisu

It's more that it wasn't disclosed when asked which was disqualifying.

Depends on your situation and objective. If you're currently employed and want to increase potential earnings in the same track, then probably around 30/35 from my personal judgement. You should really have enough professional experience and context at that point to make up for a degree, especially if you're engaging in continuing education, staying up to date on professional articles, watching conference talks, etc.

If you're looking to get an MBA to move into a management track, it's probably worth it later in life until like your 40s and 50s earnings wise.

If your current industry is tanking and you need to pivot to a new one, then you don't really have any other options than to reskill no matter how old you are.

If you just want to learn philosophy or history independent of your work, then there's not really a point where it's too late, just how many classes you have time for which is wholly dependent on your life circumstances and doesn't depend on age.

Unknown could be anything. It could even be windows!

Why the F is a single contractor able to delete an entire DB without any kind of sign off by a manager for that operation, unless they were and to sign off for each other.

Imagine if a junior messed up the command? Every system I've worked on has had these controls mainly for the latter issue, by the former also shouldn't have been possible.

That's it? That's like an upper middle class boomer's retirement fund. I presume much of the compensation is going to be in diplomatic concessions.

An issue I've seen brought up in the open source community is that they have audits that look at the number of untriaged issues and time to resolve serious issues that their funding depends on.

I'm in software, but not open source, so it seems like they don't have someone aligned with their team who they can sit down and say "either we need more resources, cut scope for new features, or accept quality / security issues coming up" to, its kind of this weird game of politics they end up needing to play to get any kind of funding for full time maintainers.

That's the main reason they can't just ignore issues that come up in their backlog, especially security ones.

When have we tried voting as an informed electorate? It doesn't matter how many times we throw them out if we don't pay attention to who we're letting in. What you're proposing is endlessly shuffling a deck and expecting it to magically be sorted after enough shuffles.

The number of morons I've talked to whose entire understanding of politics and policy boils down to them saying "government can't do anything!" or "the two sides just need to come together" infuriates me. We need people to have actual opinions based in reality of both lived experience and informing themselves through things like news stories or town halls, even if its only for a few weeks around voting season. Without that we're just going to have a revolving door of grifters each one leaving with nice full pockets each time they leave.

Kind of, in this case its a vulnerability in a portion of code that you need to compile with special flags to even include in the library (ie its not in the default build, you need to rebuild it and opt-in) so its super low impact and just ends up giving the maintainers excessive paperwork.

Security vulnerabilities are different, especially when they also put a 90 day disclosure period in it which is more severe for a security exploit.

That disclosure bit, not in the article, is really what tipped this all over the edge. If it was just hey, here's a bug then its really just flooding the backlog for the maintainers who need to triage that. Disclosures are often used so people are aware that they're using libraries that the maintainer has refused to patch, but in this case its really just holding the maintainers hostage so they end up wasting their time going through irrelevant issues.

Also, many of these libraries get security audits to make sure they are actually triaging and working through their backlogs, so could lose actual funding they get.

Ideally, they would either use their supposedly capable and powerful AI code gen to just make a fix and send over a patch, or at least use LLMs on their own end to triage the issues and only send over the most sever X periodically.

Because its the only one that supports rendering the opening cutscene from a decades old lucas arts game.

No, its saying take a second to think about what we actually want in a politician, then pushing for those people instead of blindly throwing the baby out with the bathwater, voting for another douche bag who has no platform beyond being anti-establishment, then wondering why things are somehow getting worse.

I feel like what you're hearing from me is "vote blue no matter who" what I'm actually saying is that government won't be fixed by pure cynicism, you need to actually have an opinion about how you want it to function, and I assure you there are probably some people out there who support that vision. If the people representing you do not, then by all means vote them out but also support someone who most closely aligns to what you do want.

No, I'm saying arbitrarily burning everything down without actually thinking about our politics is a recipe for making the same mistakes as last time.

How did the last candidate who promised to drain the swamp end up?