I have years of experience, but I never had the time (or will) to take on some _very minor nuisances_ or different areas of dev far from my day job expertise.
LLMs solved this. I produced about 12 different things that "I needed" to improve aspects of my life.
Each single took between a few hours to 3 days, and most of them I use daily, they are the most used applications (mobile, desktop and web) for my family.
It is a game changer.
Personalized custom software would never really reach critical mass, LLM enabled it, this is the age of personalized software, egosoftware, llmware.
The group that insists on keeping a community or software project 'non-political' often fails to recognize that this stance is itself a political position. They claim to want a neutral space, but what they really mean is that the existing political view does not align with their own. By dismissing other perspectives as 'political' while treating their own as neutral, they end up being both hypocritical and unwilling (or unable) to acknowledge that their opinions are political too.
"But I think this borders on the alarmist:
"It's worse with video, where switching away from Media Center PC might cost you the footage of your son's first steps, your sister's wedding, your holiday films."
Even the darkest tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorists don't suggest that Microsoft is going to hold my WMV-encoded home videos hostage. But you seem to be taking it even further, somehow tying it to the Media Center itself. Please explain.
Posted by: Chris Anderson"
to demonstrate how blind-sided or too naive or optimistic, a supposed technology-aware person can be.
They are giving time to more SQLite users to patch and waiting the CVE to be assigned. Looking at the chromium patch, this has something to do with ALTER TABLE. Looking at SQLite release notes they clearly are hiding the real nature of the issue there.
For instance, see this: https://www.sqlite.org/lang_altertable.html
"Compatibility Note: The behavior of ALTER TABLE when renaming a table was enhanced in versions 3.25.0 (2018-09-15) and 3.26.0 (2018-12-01) in order to carry the rename operation forward into triggers and views that reference the renamed table. This is considered an improvement. Applications that depend on the older (and arguably buggy)..."
A problem that (well tailored) enables a RCE is just "arguably buggy" in their view?