Re: Rewriting SSA. Is This A Chance For GNU/Linux?

On 4/8/25 22:29, c186282 wrote:

On 4/8/25 7:18 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

On 2025-04-08, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>

Plus front-loading it before you've run your in-house checks means that
your operating expenses to this contractor service go UP not down.  Yes,
that's a deliberate waste of taxpayer dollars.

>
You'd think someone would want to try to reduce that waste.
Maybe set up a Department Of Government Efficiency or something...

     Hey ... humans are only JUST so smart, AI is
   even more stupid, and govt agencies .........
    Likely the expense of the earlier checks do NOT add
   up to much.

It might not be, but in this case, the benefit of the change is literally zero ... and the expenses are not only more money to the contractor who gets paid by the check request, but also the cost of higher bandwidth demands which is what caused the site to crash.

   I did mention one possible gain in doing the ID checks
   earlier - giving Vlad and friends less access to the
   deeper pages/system, places where more exploitable
   flaws live.      In short, put up a big high city wall - then you>    don't have to worry AS much about the inner layers
   of the city.

I don't really buy that, because of symmetry: when the workflow is that a request has to successfully pass three gates, its functionally equivalent to (A x B x C) and the sequence doesn't matter:  one gets the same outcome for (C x B x A), and (A x C x B), etc.
The primary motivation for order selection comes from optimization factors, such as the 'costs' of each gate: one puts the cheap gates which knock down the most early, and put the slow/expensive gates late, after the dataset's size has already been minimized.
-hh