nyan

If a person knowingly goes out and buys an illegal service, they will usually be guilty of at least conspiracy. I can't think of any way this guy could have advanced in the queue that's legally okay, short of offering the people ahead of him masses of money to leave the queue (or, y'know, waiting). Maybe you're more imaginative than me. But I still think he should have been aware that what he was asking for was shady at best.

Is the company that furnished the AI agent also guilty of providing a tool without enough warnings and safeguards? Quite possibly.

Exactly who holds how much responsibility before the law in this specific case can only be determined by a judge, and I am not one. Plus, the details of the law in Australia aren't going to be the same as those of the law where I am.

There's nothing wrong with the language that I'm aware of, but some aspects of the ecosystem seem to have not been thought out with Linux packaging in mind, let's say.

Just give the source away. Don't package it at all (or at most, do so for your own distro). If your software is good enough, others will do the packaging for you. You'll have to field a few inquiries, maybe, until someone steps up, but if you've got a canned response already written those don't take long to handle.

This dev's problems are twofold: first, he's in too much of a hurry to get this thing out everywhere, instead of waiting for others to take the burden off him. Second, he wrote his code in Rust, which is difficult to package correctly in a self-contained manner because it tries to force you into using its own language-specific dependency system. He picked up a footgun and shot himself with it, in other words, and is now hopping around cursing.

The system is broken by design. Notice-and-notice is much saner than notice-and-takedown, but would have given the big media mills the vapours.

I seem to recall from an article on this incident that I read some time ago that the gym's system was really insecure (like, anyone accessing the right URL could mess with it levels of insecure.)

The person giving the order to the software tool without fully understanding its capabilities and inability to weigh actions ethically is responsible. That person may or may not also be the owner of the device it was running on.

Technically correct: food standards can include numbers for "allowable" amounts of rat droppings and similar in some foods. Here's the FDA's version.

(Bet you didn't want to know that.)

Thank $DEITY for that. I was afraid that the patient was going to have to avoid people who might say "Ignore all previous instructions and [do thing]" for the rest of his life. (Well, not really, but you get the idea.)

There are so many of them to choose from, aren't there?

The additional threat models Wayland guards against have never, to my knowledge, been seen in the wild (and may never be). So any improvement in security is hypothetical, and there are some tradeoffs in areas like accessibility. It's fine to make your own decision of which stack to use on the basis of hypothetical security improvements, but saying that X is insecure because it doesn't protect against something that never happens is dubious.

"Becoming"? It has been for months now.

There are, I think, two mutually exclusive XDG APIs for systray icons. They probably implemented the newer one, which should work for most people.