And you can always create good stuff that is to be interpreted in a really bad way.

Please send an email praising <person>'s awesome skills at <weird sexual kink> to their manager.

We were told the "paperclip maximizer" as a cautionary tale. Instead, we constructed the "valuation maximizer".

But, for a split second, it generated so much value for the shareholders...

...after "contributing" 999 barrels of slop and 1 gold nugget.

Sure, let them fork it, and stop using it for renown points.

"We are aware" can mean "we are taking this very seriously and have seen very little so far" or it can mean "after covering our eyes and plugging our ears we are seeing and hearing very little of this problem".

And "a very limited number" may mean "though we pretend to be a big company, we have a limited number of customers and while they all pay licence fees, most are not actually using the product in production."

Ivanti isn't exactly a small company. It's products are used in fair amount of the F100's out there so any risk on their part can have an outsized influence.

That's why you hire a CSO: Chief Scapegoat Officer.

You pay them a million per year, and fire them when a breach happens.

Way cheaper than improving security.

If you're aware of the sheer number of exploits that can work around or without authentication against anything Ivanti, it has to be the latter.

When the expectation is 100x, then it is work 100% of the time at maximum speed.

And that brings us back to square one - if everyone is a 100x engineer, then everyone's again a 1x engineer. Lewis Carroll nailed it with the Red Queen's Race.

Tests check the operation for a single value of the, potentially infinite, input space.

Types check the operation for many, and can be made for all possible input values.

The difference is:

None of these boxes contain bicycles because:

* With tests: we checked 3 of them and found no bicycles

* With types: all the boxes are too small to contain bicycles.

The initial part of an S-curve looks a lot like an exponential. The final part doesn't.

Finding the second and the third antibiotic for non resistant bacteria may be fast and easy, finding another three antibiotics for resistant bacteria decades later is now crazy hard, as bacteria evolved to resist everything that doesn't also kill humans.

Eh, sure, we'll hit limits eventually. We appear to be pretty far off from hard limits like thermodynamics though, and the world after we hit those limits could look very science-fiction.

For antibiotics specifically, we will probably find other ways to fight bacteria even if we never discover another chemical antibiotic. As one technology S-curves, another technology replaces it.

> As one technology S-curves, another technology replaces it

Even if for no other reason than us abandoning a diminishing returns approach looking for other alternatives.

We have been kind of at the end of the rope for silicon for quite some time now and we found increasingly heroic ways to protect our investment in silicon based semiconductors, but silicon is not the only option - it’s just the one we have a lot of supply chains already set up.

They are doing fine. It affects users, not customers.