Where are you seeing this? LLMs make it easier to do bulk data analysis / scale attack patterns, but I've not seen anything to suggest they're incentivizing people to do OSINT against random individuals to fire off targeted attacks on home LANs.
The juice isn't really worth the squeeze for the token spend any more than it was worth the human energy.
How many people out there have attackers doing individualized research to identify services on their home LAN so they can chain a network attack with CVEs in their self-hosted service?
Your original link makes fairly clear how disingenuous it is to call the figures a national average:
> Data from International IQ Test (IIT) are based on data from 1,352,763 participants worldwide who took the same IQ test on the website.
> Becker’s estimates are categorized by source. T = value is based upon actual test results from said country. E = value is a best-guess estimate based upon measured values of nearby countries.
Opening up the actual paper from Becker they're citing is basically a wandering tour where they try to find whatever numbers do exist and then math their way out of the fact that the sample sizes are small and the tests are different everywhere.
Various entities have performed IQ tests on people in many nations. But taking that and trying to flip it to say we've derived average national IQ is junk science.
The reason this bug is unexpected is that the user is expecting to have to enter their password (because they expect the key to be wiped on suspend), and then _they are_ asked for their password. But there was a copy of the key elsewhere in kernel memory that was never cleared.
We've managed to make the entire corpus of open source software but the thing that's a "Hard Problem" that nobody can find a way to do is making the icons look good?
It's almost like it's not a technical challenge, it's that getting good looking icons would require a unified userbase, and Apple has that but Linux does not.
It just feels a bit like you've decided to solve the hardest possible side quest first.
Everything else on your roadmap could have been built and shipped in the universe that exists, and then if down the road it's working, you could have aimed for your own TLD.
Instead you're putting the TLD first and any of the actual functionality that end users might want afterwards.
You think that users having to find and download software from the Internet at large is both similar to the AUR model and has preferable handling of these issues?
I think it's clear at this point that the allegations don't worry them. They tried debunking them by pointing out that the overwhelming majority of these are separate daemons that are entirely optional, can be packaged separately, and don't affect anybody who doesn't want to use them. The people raging against systemd didn't feel obligated to take those facts into account.
So they're just doing their own thing, and the distro landscape seems a clear indication that their own thing looks pretty compelling to basically every distro with any meaningful market share.
People may as well make the pitch that Linux is "taking over everything".
[email protected]