apple4ever

Yes 100%

> Companies should also be legally barred from hiring for three years if they engage in layoffs.

I like this. I was trying to think of some way to allow layoffs for struggling companies but not reward layoffs for companies that are making a profit, who just want to make more. My idea was more around the executive team being unable to take a salary or having to fire the CEO or something, nothing which as I worked through in my head seemed workable.

I'm not sure if that's true.

> think it's just something we have to go through and a lot of people will who were negatively affected will look back on wondering why they pushed so hard against AI rather than up skilling.

Given what is happening, it seems more likely they will wonder why they didn't push hard enough.

Whether you like AI or not, its hard to miss that its lead to hundreds of thousands of layoffs.

No I want NetPlan on Ubuntu because it works way better than anything else.

I can and have removed snaps from Ubuntu and had no issues with losing software I needed.

Ubuntu is not doing things behind the admin of that product, so not sure of that complain. I buy into Ubuntu because I care about Linux at large. Its more than bearable, its great.

No its not ironic.

NetPlan works great for all network configurations.

Sounds like you didn't prove its vulnerable against a stock PHP server though, so that's not a great response.

> thousands of attempts to exploit it.

That is people trying to exploit it, not that it is being exploited in the wild. They could've all failed because its not easily exploitable, like the post said.

> Because the PHP devs and the researchers all explicitly stated that they have PoCs that can exploit it. Are they lying? Exaggerating? Spreading FUD?

We don't know, that's why we are asking for evidence.

> I am speculating as to why the ones who have the most information tell us something very different than a "random blogger who tried repos on github".

But do we know they have the most information? Or are they relying on the same thing everyone else is?

Because no one has provided one.

> The risk, unless the original reports have been lies, is very real.

Is it? That's the question.

Or because they understand its not worth spending the money on, since the person making the assertion should demonstrate it.

The question we are getting at is - is this easily exploitable? I haven't see evidence of that.

I think its absolutely getting tripped up by mass hysteria to go offline for a couple of hours without confirming the severity.

Just reading all of these made me question if it actually was this secure. It seemed very much like a moral panic. Sure I patched as soon as it came out, but taking websites offline seemed a bit much.

Right, even the full example has not been released, he asserted that there are posts with people saying it, so lets at least see those.

However, that still doesn't actually show that the original post is wrong - since we can't actually see how it can be exploited against a vanilla PHP server.

You are missing the point. The OP is claiming this vulnerability isn't as easy to exploit, and all the examples rely on a chain of unrelated vulnerabilities to show the PHP vulnerability working.

You asserted without evidence that there is working examples.

Someone asked for those examples, and instead of providing them, you insulted everyone.

No they don't.

Its far too hyperbolic to say they became the Microsoft of the Linux world.

I'm glad they are moving with self-interest, and that self-interest is Ubuntu and its users. For example, systemd the launcher and netplan are net good for Linux.

Yes snaps are not great, but they can be removed.

Netplan is great, Debian should go with that, though without the bullying.

Otherwise, I'm not sure how Ubuntu isn't still good.

There is a reason for both. Is it annoying? Yes. But its better than slopware that will be unsupported in 3 months.

"I ordered it but I don't want you to know that"

It really grates on me as well, though I can't fully explain why either. I supposed because it comes across as artificial.

Great analogy.

No they didn't. They ordered it.

I'm sure there were plenty of people like me who couldn't help because they didn't have the right amount of "karma".

And plenty of times I had an answer to a question but couldn't because I didn't have enough 'karma'. Sorry I'm not going to waste my time gaming the system to answer a question and be helpful.

It's time to allow anyone to post. All the people who wanted to go through the pain of getting karma have done it.

I would've been active but I can't because of the karma rules.

Maybe because they just didn't get to it yet.

But it's not impressive that you did it - that's the point. Because anyone can do it. Its impressive what the LLM though.

They merely commissioned it. All they did was order something from a chef. Which is fine! But it's not impressive what they did, though it's impressive what the chef can do.

It definitely kept me from starting on one for 2 years. It was stupid. I lost 70 pounds and feel better than ever, with very little side effects.