Are you sure the story is real? I can find anything that points to it, so a link would help a lot
I like the title of the seagull video, that's very on point
I felt like that, too. I guess people glorifying him are missing the point entirely, and it is close to the ‘we finally announce our very own torment nexus implementation’ level of missing a point, imo
I don't know if you hinted on this, but the story is wild:
A passenger on National Airlines Flight 27 was blown out of the window of an airplane at an altitude of 39,000 feet (12,000 m) over the U.S. state of New Mexico, after the number 3 engine on the Douglas DC-10-10, exploded and fragments penetrated the fuselage. The jet had been en route from Houston to Las Vegas when the accident happened at 4:40 in the afternoon, and made a safe emergency landing in Albuquerque, New Mexico. According to the subsequent NTSB investigation, the cockpit voice recorder showed that the engine explosion happened immediately after the first officer asked the captain "Wonder— wonder if you pull the N1 tach will that— autothrottle respond to N1?" and the captain replied, "Gee, I don't know." The first officer then said "You want to try it and see?" Thirty-four seconds later, the explosion happened. An extensive search was unable to locate the passenger, machinist George F. Gardner of Beaumont, Texas, who had been sitting by the window in seat 17F.
Most things installed from steam run just fine without steam running
Just need a bigger car, then it's fine
That you can link here?
More or less, but it looks like the majority of the countries is not willing to do that (I only heard of real results at scale in Finland, tbh)
While reading that I thought they intended to make mounds akin to the ones made by megapodes (sort of chicken-like), but now I understand why people have mistaken a declassified data for an April Fools
Twice, so far
Basic allows something to be defined via itself? Or does it just initialise to random values like C?
Z=Z-Z looks wild, but if there are no special values for integers, it will always be zero, indeed
Yeah, and the author even addresses this, maybe they left the title this way to let people be able to find this article along with others they bash about being click bait:
Well, in my opinion, the headlines describing the bug as a CSS exploit in Chrome are a bit clickbait-y, because they make it sound like a pure CSS exploit, as though malicious CSS and HTML would be enough to perform it.
[…]
Even re-reading the reports more carefully, they feel intentionally misleading, and it wasn’t just me. My security-minded friend’s first question to me was, “But… isn’t CSS, like, super validatable?” And then I dug deeper and found out the CSS in the proof of concept for the exploit isn’t the malicious bit, which is why CSS validation wouldn’t have helped!
It doesn’t help the misunderstanding when the SitePoint article about CVE-2026-2441 bizarrely lies to its readers about what this exploit is, instead describing a different medium-severity bug that allows sending the rendered value of an input field to a malicious server by loading images in CSS. That is not what this vulnerability is.
It’s not really a CSS exploit in the sense that JavaScript is the part that exploits the bug. I’ll concede that the line of code that creates the condition necessary for a malicious script to perform this attack was in Google Chrome’s Blink CSS engine component, but the CSS involved isn’t the malicious part