Anthropic mention that they did beforehand, and it was the good performance it had there that lead to them looking for new bugs (since they couln't be sure that it was just memorising the vulnerabilities that had already been published).
I've seen it used to impersonate github themselves and serve backdoored versions of their software (the banner is pretty easy to avoid: link to the readme of the malicious commit with an anchor tag and put a nice big download link in it).
The point being that AWS runs AWS, they don't run your business on AWS. You still need someone to actually set up AWS to do what you want, much like you would need someone to run your on-premises servers. And in my experience, the difference is not much.
The biggest issue is that with colo you're building a skill pool that can be used forever, with AWS you're building a skill pool centered around a corporate entity's business strategies and an inscrutable, closed-source system, which is not sustainable.
Moving around the physical hardware is a truly tiny part of the actual job, it's really not relevant. (especially nowadays, see the top level comment about how you can do an insane amount (probably more than the median cloud deployment) with a fraction of a rack).
France has an unusual rung on their escalation ladder, in that they will use a low-yield nuke on a military target before they launch their big ones at cities, but this is still fundamentally about trying to avoid MAD, by hoping that the very expensive signal of _actually_ nuking something but not going all-out will precipitate some de-escalation by showing that they really are serious about it.
Yeah, but TSG paid in 213 million and is (at max, assuming there are no creditors to pay, which seems unlikely) getting 33 million out. That's them cutting their losses, not making a profit. They could be getting about 15% of their money back instead of zero, but either way they aren't winning here, just losing slightly less hard than everyone else (though it sounds like the founders made out pretty well). (and realistically, it was probably obviously a very risky bet if the company was not able to get a better deal: these kinds of deals are generally a sign that things are already bad and getting worse, and someone is hoping to try to pull something from the wreckage: the deal obviously meant that if brewdog did manage to turn things around, the value would largely be sucked up by the preferred investors).
How easy reverse engineering something is varies a lot. Something where the production process is the secret can be almost impossible to reverse engineer, for example.
It was more that regular people started joining the internet through just paying for ISPs. Before that, most of the people just joining the internet were students, so there would be a wave of newbies at the start of the university year every September and they would get acclimatised to the culture there during the year. But once it was year-round and many more people it swamped things and the culture shifted or closed itself off.
Exactly. The "September" was an existing phenomenon, but was only limited to a couple of months every year. It became "Eternal" after the masses started finding their way to internet (well, USENET in particular).
And the thing usually is that what you want from your engine is the flexibility to be able to change things around easily so you can iterate and experiment on the game design itself. Sometimes a custom engine can give you that (especially if you're going off the beaten track) but often the tooling around the off-the-shelf engines is much better for it.
reply