If you can corrupt memory in a controllable way, you can get a computer to do just about anything that process has rights to. Possibly even the kernel, if you can get at some shared memory.

But it's not a given that memory corruption is exploitable as an RCE specifically. I thought to call something an RCE you need a working exploit?

Presumably one of Anthropic, Google, or Apache possesses a working exploit, because the official Apache Foundation report on this CVE claims RCE is possible.

Isn't resource consumption a DoS?

A denial of service is a different class of vulnerability (a minor one, generally).

It depends on your market and your work, but it would be hard I think to work out of a truck with ~200 mile range. Maybe when charging vastly improves in both speed and availability...

I work out of a Ford E-Transit with 110-135 miles of range while living in an area with fairly poor DC fast charging coverage. You learn to live with it and plan accordingly.

I'm obviously not saying it's impossible to do so. But if you work in a rural area where your customers might be 70 miles or more apart, you can't exactly go from one customer to the next many times in a row. So now you're leaving money on the table because you have to turn down work.

The lawyers made them do it.

I'm with you on the sticker shock. But, playing devil's advocate here, I bet you use your phone a lot more than your laptop. So why shouldn't it be of higher quality?

The probability of losing or getting my phone stolen must be 20x that of my laptop. That alone justifies spending 1/4 on the phone purchase.

Valid question, with the answer being that the higher quality does not enable me to do anything more than what I want to do.

Whereas with the laptop, spending more does. Up to a point anyway, but that cut-off sits higher than with phones.

You would lose that bet. I use a real computer (desktop or laptop) far more than I use my phone.

I'm an avid photographer.

1) The best camera is the one you have in your hand... Or in your pocket. Your fancy Sony or whatever doesn't help if it's at home or turned off in your bag with no lens on it when something magical starts happening that you wish to capture.

2) Most people don't care. They're not photographers. All they want is to take a picture, have it look "good enough" with zero effort, and be able to immediately share it with friends. You're taking about an entirely different market.

"1) The best camera is the one you have in your hand... Or in your pocket."

Not necessarily. Sometimes it's better to forget about taking the shot if all you have is a phone camera.

The best camera is ... the one that's best tailored for the shot. Everything else is a compromise or, as we used to say, a waste of film.

Again, you're talking about two different markets. I promise you a parent watching their toddler doing something cute will not think "darn, I wish I had my 50mm right now. Oh well, I'll just not capture this moment for posterity."

They'll pull their Pixel out of their pocket, hit the power button twice, and immediately take 100 photos that will all end up looking at least halfway decent.

I carefully plan my art. I know where the sun will be. I know where I'll be standing, with what cameras, and what lenses on them. I'll have the manual settings already configured. I'll even have in my head what frame the final picture will go into.

But if my daughter suddenly starts running through my leaf pile with a huge grin? In pulling out my Pixel.

I would expect the experience to be about what it's like on pixel phones, if not better. Graphene at least has the ear of the hardware manufacturer in this case, which they don't for Google.

Sorry, but this just seems like FUD to me.

A) This is already the case for basically every phone for sale, and thus isn't really applicable to this article. Also, I thought the modem was by Qualcomm?

B) Sure, they could ban all Chinese made devices but that would basically mean banning all devices. Pixels are made in China just like Motorola, so again, not much of a difference here (I'll allow that there may be a difference of just how much of the phones are made in China.)

C) How is the government going to ban the use of an open source OS? And why would they? Apple has spit in the government's eye a few times and yet they don't ban iOS.

Not intended to be FUD, legitimate concern. I could see how it could come off that way.

A and B) Sure, but you said it yourself: that how much is a significant factor. And Pixels use Samsung modems, not Qualcomm

C) How does the government ban anything? Through legislation and enforcement. That can take a number of different forms

> And Pixels use Samsung modems, not Qualcomm

Yeah and Samsung foundry makes Qualcomm chips. So does TSMC, but I'm pretty sure China doesn't control that despite what they may say. At no point while searching online did I see mention of these chips being made in China.

> Not intended to be FUD, legitimate concern. I could see how it could come off that way.

No problem!

> Try pushing anything scientific against the climate change Mafia or against evolution theory and see how hard it crashes

The climate change... Mafia? You make it sound like the group is so powerful. If it were, I think we'd see more change around here.

Instead of a Mafia are you sure it's not just inertia? There is a lot of data and evidence for both climate change and evolution. Any theories going a different direction would need to show some exceptionally good evidence to the contrary if you wanted it to be taken seriously. That seems perfectly normal to me. If you published a paper stating that eclipses were harbingers of doom, I would want to see some exceptionally clear evidence simply because it refutes so much established science. It's not impossible; such change has happened before, but again, only with solid evidence.

That aside, are you speaking from personal experience here? Or are you just projecting? If you actually have a paper you tried publishing I'd like to read it.

One has to separate the science from journalistic malfeasance. The news is heavily dependent on attracting eyeballs, and fearmongering does that well.