If Firefox revoked trust and I open one of these websites it should reject the secure connection, right?

I assume NIM only works with nvidia cards not AMD?

All 39 observed attempts to publish packages to our NuGet feeds were rejected.

The observed attempts to access other customers' data or restricted resources were rejected. Tens of thousands of requests targeting our core systems did not result in unauthorised access.

Did I just read about good security practices? It certainly feels like a nice change compared to catastrophic or non-transparent reports we often see from other parties.

That they can trace, analyze, and recognize the attack activities and consequences stood out to me as well. (It's a topic/target in my work environment too.)

On Tuesday, the world found out about two massive security vulnerabilities in PHP, a programming language that is used by roughly 70 percent of websites.

Matthew Prince, the CEO of the hosting company Cloudflare, wrote that in the 10 hours before the flaws were publicly announced, “we saw thousands of attempts to exploit it. That jumped to tens of thousands in the 45 minutes post announcement, hundreds of thousands within 2 hours, and millions now.”

Surý, who lives in Czechia, does not work for the PHP Foundation. But alongside his day job as director of domain-name-system engineering at the nonprofit Internet Systems Consortium, in a volunteer capacity, he maintains and helps automate patches for the coding language. His work, with that of just a handful of others, has allowed countless websites and organizations to fix these vulnerabilities quickly. Over the past 48 hours, he’s become arguably the unsung hero of the entire internet—despite the fact that the only compensation he receives is from modest donations. “Ondřej will save the internet today,” a user in the PHP Subreddit wrote.

I spoke with Surý today from his home about the unfolding AI-cybersecurity crisis, how the internet’s infrastructure is maintained by small crews of volunteers such as himself, and how it feels to go to bed after saving the web as we know it.

(Bolding is mine to indicate who this is about.)

Reading the tldr immediately made me think of special keywords being introduced that you wouldn't guess.

Those in the know could then trigger the more secure mode, while everyone else wouldn't know any better.

It could also be the language you prompt with. Make Chinese prompt results secure by default, and others not.

The latter would be demonstrable. The prior would need discovering or leaking/whistleblowing the secret phrase before it would be demonstrable.

Is it free (title claim) if I'm blocked from accessing it? I don't think so. At least not freely accessible.

Is it free if I pay with personal data, tracking, and information about me being sold? I don't think so. (The block popover certainly doesn't give any information about their ad practices but I can only assume it'll be a big network tracking users.)

(Touch) scrolling seems broken on that website. Jitters/stutters.

It's a broad topic.

Be mindful of how you communicate. Differentiate between questions, risks, wrongs, subjective. Talk with your teammates. Establish a common understanding of deliberate word use or forms, intentions, and necessities to answer or change or not.

Consider whether passive and non-aggressive communication is the best approach. Some people may not pick up on defensive tone and just not care. Maybe they need more direct and pushy speech and discussions where you point stuff out, including the overall approach to working together and your assumptions or expectations.

Be mindful of sharing alternative approaches or knowledge vs not commenting to reduce own time investment and number of comments. Discuss with your team where the sweet spot is. This may change over time and is different with different people, their experience in general and in the project.

Make it clear that the one submitting the code is the owner and person responsible. They have to take ownership.

If necessary, establish a common understanding of where to commit time investment. Usually it's much preferable for the author to invest time into a well documented submission over a reviewer trying to understand and find things out through analysis and questions.

Try to find a common understanding of not just the solution but what the authors understanding and intentions, what edges and alternatives did they consider, what risks or decision basis did they use.

Establish understanding on what your role as reviewer is. Risk reduction? Common standardized solutions and code? Are you lead and give long term direction, including how things are implemented to reduce long term complexity and variance? Do you teach through reviews?

If necessary or unclear, ask what or how deep you are being asked to review. Depending on the author expertise and trustworthyness and your load, sometimes merely approving a concept and a broad peek into the most risky parts or what you want to see the approach on may be enough. Sometimes they may be confident and just want approval on the concept, not every code change.

Be mindful of when to not post comments but ask for a shared screen meeting and talk for them to walk you through or explain things. The author should also be mindful of when they think discussion before asynchronous written review makes sense.

Consider whether you are always the one who should review. At all, or first. Maybe someone else can. Maybe you can do a second review pass, maybe only on remaining open questions.

who is brian hood

Depending on the context, Brian Hood most commonly refers to one of two notable figures: […]

It tells me about two Brian Hoods. I assume one of them is the supposed denied one?

Or it is selective about what information it gives about them.

Also, nobody actually knows if human intelligence is just finer grained stochastic prediction as well.

An interesting but valid argument. It doesn't make AI better than it is, but any human contribution and change can and often is also faulty. People have gaps of knowledge, sometimes unwarranted confidence, other times lack of care, or just miss things. It's not like we're comparing the perfect human vs faulty AI.

If you don’t mind the security risk then you can of course use an older release.

I haven't read the original rage/drama but I can imagine if from other drama instances.

This post is certainly a good, founded response.

There's some valid concerns in AI usage, but unwarranted or inappropriate harsh criticism when it's an established trusted developer and engineer - if we assumed good practice before then we could assume continued good practice. Maybe LLM is one point of increasing skepticism, but criticism should be open, respectful, and fair.

They invested a lot of time and effort into a public good project. In that context, they deserve at least respectful and non-worst-assumptuous criticism.

That's a read-only mirror, not a "move onto GitHub".

PRs get automatically closed, referring to the contrib docs.

• https://firefox-source-docs.mozilla.org/contributing/how_to_submit_a_patch.html
• https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/

Turned into a skeleton in 10 minutes

March 30, 2026 @ 10:45 AM EST: Martin Woodward, Vice President of Developer Relations at GitHub, confimed that Copilot was injecting product tips into pull requests but that the feature has been disabled following feedback.

They posted an update to the article about this recent update. After feedback, they decided to disable this feature.

I scale by dropping requests

DuckDuckGo

no no no, this is the wrong way around

because sales and marketing sell it before it even exists

ha, nice pic

These terms included affirming the statement that we 'do not, and will not during the term of this financial assistance award, operate any programs that advance or promote DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion], or discriminatory equity ideology in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws,'

Insane. I can't even fathom adding such a condition. And to a well established org with a positive track record.

Toxic offer. Wouldn't even be able to say that inclusivity is a good thing.

CrowdStrike ToS, section 8.6 Disclaimer

[…] THE OFFERINGS AND CROWDSTRIKE TOOLS ARE NOT FAULT-TOLERANT AND ARE NOT DESIGNED OR INTENDED FOR USE IN ANY HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENT REQUIRING FAIL-SAFE PERFORMANCE OR OPERATION. NEITHER THE OFFERINGS NOR CROWDSTRIKE TOOLS ARE FOR USE IN THE OPERATION OF AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION, NUCLEAR FACILITIES, COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, WEAPONS SYSTEMS, DIRECT OR INDIRECT LIFE-SUPPORT SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, OR ANY APPLICATION OR INSTALLATION WHERE FAILURE COULD RESULT IN DEATH, SEVERE PHYSICAL INJURY, OR PROPERTY DAMAGE. […]

It's about safety, but truly ironic how it mentions aircraft-related twice, and communication systems (very broad).

It certainly doesn't impose confidence in the overall stability. But it's also general ToS-speak, and may only be noteworthy now, after the fact.