I’m hardly going to simp for LLM tools but the fact that the bug existed and no one had reported it seems proof positive no one was about to find it without them
at least for awhile this is how bluesky/atproto worked. afaik they only ran into issues when the number of users on each server overwhelmed how many files would fit comfortably in a single directory (which is obviously a large number)
my understanding matches yours. I don't think this article is particularly clear about why rapid7 would threaten to disclose a vulnerability before a patch is ready and then subsequently get angry that jetbrains put out a patch to fix the issue
so rapid7 is mad that jetbrains fixed the vulns they reported? isn't that the point of reporting vulnerabilities? why is rapid7 threatening to release the details in 24 hours?
the context is "yes, you were down by 14, but your team just lined up and scored a TD on the last play. you have to make the decision whether to kick the XP or go for 2. since you just scored 6, you are now down 8"
it is confusing because the conversation is taking place after you just scored
these are the assumptions they are attempting to debunk:
- All 2-point conversions are equally likely to succeed.
I have seen no evidence that all 2-point conversions *aren't* equally likely to succeed, and even if they were two bites at that apple gives you better odds than just one
- You will stop the other team from scoring.
regardless of whether you choose to go for it or kick the XP, you still have to stop your opponent on their subsequent drive. if they do so much as kick a FG it's game over already, so it doesn't matter.
- You will get a touchdown on the subsequent drive.
you have to score a TD or the debate doesn't matter so it's irrelevant to this argument
- The clock expires after that.
again we have to assume we are preventing the opponent from scoring any additional points because the debate makes no sense without that caveat
- There are even odds of winning in overtime.
getting to OT in this scenario is the fallback, while it's the best outcome of just kicking the XP twice in a row
you're planning around the time where most of the people who review these things are going to be taking PTO. as far as I could tell reading the guidelines the only guarantee apple gives you is that they'll get to it as soon as possible
it's also a little funny that DHH is saying that apple exempted them from the rules last time and then a couple paragraphs later is complaining that apple exempts other companies from the rules as well
only people who are actively looking for jobs are considered unemployed, so the "jobless working age population" is a larger group than people considered unemployed. so, you can have a person who is unemployed get a job and another person who is jobless but wasn't considered unemployed because they weren't actively looking then become unemployed because they began to actively look for a job.