Helpful if your apps are network clients. The Pi is a great DNS server, DHCP server, NTP, even SMTP. Easy to configure as a router, proxy, etc. Test degraded networks, unavailable systems, specific configurations, etc.

Same goes for Chicago, and this is only at a 4% reduction. I have to believe a lot of people are self-canceling travel plans.

I get enough value from it to justify the $20/mo., but not $100 (especially since I have no idea if I'll hit usage limits at that rate either). I've suspected all along the reckoning would come when subsidized usage stopped. Oh well.

I’m guessing probably not a Good Thing (TM), but canceling 10% of domestic flights at major airports has resulted in Logan being, frankly, not crowded. Plenty of people here, but it’s not the typical bursting-at-the-seams levels I’m used to.

I realize I was too generous. Monkeys are quite intelligent. It’s really 200 billion dice rolls.

CVE record is available at www.cve.org/CVERecord?id...

CISA Advisory is published at www.cisa.gov/news-events/...

I have done a small amount of security research over the 5–6 years, all publicly disclosed (or pending public disclosure). Some work took a few days. Some has taken years. For the latter, a bounty would have to be tremendously high to buy my perpetual silence.

Wonder if they’ll allow police access without user consent/knowledge like they do with Ring. 😱

Yes. Tip them and buy a beer or two to support the brewery.

I do understand the basic principle of how LLMs work, so this whole exchange actually does make sense to me. But it also demonstrates the danger they pose. If nothing else, I'm impressed by its ability to be as confidently wrong as a typical Internet shit poster.

I told it was outright wrong and provided a simple proof. It got sassy. I mean, it's not wrong here, but the original scenario I gave it was exactly this. So it's basically arguing, "Sure, this works for *your scenario*, but different problems may need different solutions." Ummm, yes?

It generated *13 scenarios* like this to "prove" its point, each time finding the scenario to *not* prove its point. So it called the outcomes "lucky." It says, "In your case, it happens to work due to the simple scale factor and common value ranges."