short answer: no, not really

long answer, here's an analogy that might help:

you go to https://yourbank.com and log in with your username and password. you click the button to go to Online Bill Pay, and tell it to send ACME Plumbing $150 because they just fixed a leak under your sink.

when you press "Send", your browser does something like send a POST request to https://yourbank.com/send-bill-payment with a JSON blob like {"account_id": 1234567890, "recipient": "ACME Plumbing", "amount": 150.0} (this is heavily oversimplified, no actual online bank would work like this, but it's close enough for the analogy)

and all that happens over TLS. which means it's "secure". but security is not an absolute, things can only be secure with a particular threat model in mind. in the case of TLS, it means that if you were doing this at a coffee shop with an open wifi connection, no one else on the coffeeshop's wifi would be able to eavesdrop and learn your password.

(if your threat model is instead "someone at the coffeeshop looking over your shoulder while you type in your password", no amount of TLS will save you from that)

but with the type of vulnerability Jellyfin has, someone else can simply send their own POST request to https://yourbank.com/send-bill-payment with {"account_id": 1234567890, "recipient": "Bob's Shady Plumbing", "amount": 10000.0}. and your bank account will process that as you sending $10k to Bob's Shady Plumbing.

that request is also over TLS, but that doesn't matter, because that's security for a different level of the stack. the vulnerability is that you are logged in as account 1234567890, so you should be allowed to send those bill payment requests. random people who aren't logged in as you should not be able to send bill payments on behalf of account 1234567890.

I'm picturing a bunch of FBI agents with two side-by-side printouts, the list of Epstein's clients and a list of Trump campaign donors, cross-referencing them in order to make sure "sensitive information" is redacted.

click here to pre-order my upcoming book, published by Harvard Business Review, "Don't Be A Fucking Nazi and Other Secrets To Corporate Success"

here is the original source of the article, published on a site called Futurism: https://futurism.com/microsoft-ceo-ai-generating-no-value

it got syndicated by Yahoo News because Yahoo does a ton of that in a increasingly desperate attempt to be relevant

judging by the "more top stories" on Futurism's home page right now, they lean pretty heavily on clickbait:

Trump White House Tells Elon He's Stepped Over the Line

Microsoft Backing Out of Expensive New Data Centers After Its CEO Expressed Doubt About AI Value

Shark Steals Camera, Capturing Amazing Footage From Inside Its Mighty Jaws

here is the primary source that the article is based on: https://www.dwarkeshpatel.com/p/satya-nadella

there's a transcript that I suspect is almost certainly AI-generated, so some of these quotes may not be completely accurate:

Satya, thank you so much for coming on the podcast. So just in a second, we're going to get to the two breakthroughs that Microsoft has just made. And congratulations, same day in nature. Majorana Zero chip, which we have in front of us right here, and also the world human action models.

right off the bat, we have the context that this is a friendly interview for Nadella to promote some new "breakthroughs" that Microsoft has. this may be explicit spon-con or just "regular" access journalism, it's hard to say.

around 15 minutes in, the host asks:

You recently reported that your yearly revenue from AI is $13 billion. But if you look at your year-on-year growth on that, in like four years, it'll be 10x that. You'll have $130 billion in revenue from AI if the trend continues. If it does, what do you anticipate... we're doing with all that intelligence?

Like this industrial scale use, is it going to be like through office? Is it going to be you deploying it for others to host? Is it going to be, you got to have the AGIs to have 130 billion in revenue? What does it look like?

and Nadella responds:

Yeah. I see the way I come at it, Dworkish, is it's a great question because at some level, if you're going to have this sort of explosion, abundance, whatever commodity of intelligence available, the first thing we have to observe is GDP growth, right? Before I get to what Microsoft's sort of revenue will look like, I mean, there's only one governor in all of this, right? Which is, this is where a little bit of, we get ahead of ourselves with all this AGI hype, which is, hey, you know what? Let's first see if, let's say develop, I mean, like, remember, like, the developed world is what? 2% growth, and if you adjust for inflation, it's zero? That, like, so in 2025, as we sit here, I'm not an economist. At least I look at it and say, man, we have a real growth challenge. So the first thing that we all have to do is let, and when we say, oh, this is like the industrial revolution, blah, blah, blah. Oh, let's have that industrial revolution type of growth. That means to me, 10%. 7%, developed world, inflation adjusted, growing at 5%. That's the real marker, right? So it's not just, it can't just be supply side, right? It has to be, in fact, that's the thing, right?

I think there's a lot of people are writing about it. I'm glad they are, which is the big winners here are not going to be tech companies. The winners are going to be the broader industry that uses this commodity that, by the way, is abundant. Suddenly, productivity goes up and the economy is growing at a faster rate.

When that happens, We'll be fine as an industry. But that's, to me, the moment, right? So it costs self-claiming some AGI milestone. That's just nonsensical benchmark hacking to me. The real benchmark is, is the world growing at 10%.

that word salad is a lot of things, but I don't think it lives up to the "generating basically no value" hype that Futurism tried to give it.

also, I like that the transcript includes the seamless ad transition...which is of course for an AI product:

A quick word from our sponsor, Scale AI. Publicly available data is running out, so major labs like Meta and Google DeepMind and OpenAI all partner with Scale to push the boundaries of what's possible. Through Scale's data foundry, major labs get access to high-quality data to fuel post-training, including advanced reasoning capabilities.

As AI races forward, we must also strengthen human sovereignty. SCALE's research team, SEAL, provides practical AI safety frameworks, evaluates frontier AI system safety via public leaderboards, and creates foundations for integrating advanced AI into society. Most recently, in collaboration with the Center for AI Safety, SCALE published Humanity's Last Exam, a groundbreaking new AI benchmark for evaluating AI systems' expert level knowledge and reasoning across a wide range of fields. If you're an AI researcher or engineer and you want to learn more about how SCALE's data foundry and research team can help you go beyond the current frontier of capabilities, go to scale.com slash Dwarkesh.

did these fucking dweebs seriously name their AI research team the "SEAL team"?

most of this article is fairly ho-hum - a series of quotes from various people that are unsurprising given whatever their position is.

but then buried way down at the bottom, a little nugget of Actual News - as opposed to "political figure gives on-the-record statement to a journalist about what they think".

I hadn't seen this reported anywhere else:

A Harris organizer who worked on youth turnout said that senior campaign officials gave them an order: When they sent out mass volunteer or fundraising emails and people replied by asking about Gaza, they were told to mark it as “no response.” The result? They seldom ended up engaging with voters on that issue.

“We also didn’t create a new category for Gaza responses out of fear that category would be leaked. Instead we were told to mark them as ‘no response,’” the organizer said, faulting top Harris campaign leaders for failing to address the issue. “The only ‘clowns’ out there are those who were in senior leadership and decided to abdicate on this issue, who silenced a Palestinian speaker at the DNC, and who told us to ignore it every time a voter asked us about Gaza.”

just, head in the sand. literal head in the sand.

a smart campaign would have at least tracked this data.

even if the campaign steadfastly maintains their "we are entitled to your vote either way, so shut the fuck up and stop complaining" stance, you would want to gather the data about how many people on these contact lists responded and mentioned Gaza.

but they were scared of that data leaking. because it would have generated a bunch of "the DNC's own data shows it's out of touch with Democratic voters about Gaza" headlines. those headlines would have made the Democrats look bad. they would also have been true, but that's besides the point.

the genocide is (for now) over

"for now" is really doing some heavy lifting there

Netanyahu says Israel 'reserves right to resume war' and calls first phase a 'temporary ceasefire'

but also, even if the ceasefire was permanent, that doesn't mean the genocide stops.

if you bomb a bunch of hospitals, and then agree to a ceasefire, the hospitals don't magically come back into existence.

ditto water treatment plants and similar infrastructure. Diseases spread in Gaza as sewage contaminates camps and coast

a ceasefire means that the "dropped a bomb on a refugee camp" aspect of the genocide stops. the "there's a refugee camp with a never-ending stream of needless and preventable deaths" aspect of the genocide will continue unabated.

cheers to the NZ Herald for calling a spade a spade

the cowards at the "paper of record" NY Times went with "Elon Musk Ignites Online Speculation Over the Meaning of a Hand Gesture"

BBC: Elon Musk's gesture at Trump rally draws scrutiny

The Guardian: Elon Musk appears to make back-to-back fascist salutes at inauguration rally

if Trump shot someone on 5th Ave these fucking lickspittles would probably give it a "President-involved shooting ignites debate over the limits of executive power" headline

tapping the "there are no good billionaires" sign

remember when Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post, slapped "Democracy dies in darkness" on the masthead, and a bunch of MSNBC-brained liberals thought it was going to be the newspaper that led the resistance against Trump?

I just woke up from a years-long coma. could someone tell me how that worked out?

I've been very cynical about the TikTok ban, and assumed people would work around it by sideloading the APK on Android phones, after it was removed from the app stores (which, as I detailed in this comment, could theoretically get random users who share the APK with friends prosecuted by the federal government and charged with a $5000 per user fine)

but this is exceeding my wildest expectations

"oh, but it's full of Chinese propaganda!!!" people will whine. cool. don't care. Twitter and Facebook are full of American propaganda, no one seems to be falling over themselves to ban those apps from app stores.

if propaganda is the concern, have schools teach critical thinking and how to recognize propaganda techniques. they won't do that, of course, because they want people to be susceptible to American propaganda.

haha class solidarity go brrr. the average American worker has more in common with the average Chinese worker than they do with an American oligarch. all of the American propaganda about how Chinese people are inherently untrustworthy and nefarious is gonna fall apart as people interact with actual Chinese people and realize "oh they're pretty much just like me, other than the language barrier".

and TikTok-style shortform video is very nearly the ideal medium for surmounting that language barrier. it was already commonplace to have captions in TikTok videos. start captioning videos on RedNote in both English and Chinese and bang, language differences don't matter nearly as much anymore.

you will get better answers to your question, and a more productive discussion in general, if you leave your subjective opinion out of the question.

it’s not fully memory safe (there are some programming languages that are even safer, like Ada)?

for example, you might ask instead "why has Rust gotten widespread adoption, that previous safety-focused languages like Ada did not enjoy?"

putting this in the context of other committee fights the Democrats have been having:

77-year-old Jerry Nadler was the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee (which also plays a crucial oversight role)

Nadler's leadership was successfully challenged by 62-year-old Jamie Raskin.

so Democrats' version of "younger blood" was to replace a baby boomer (born 1947) with...a slightly younger baby boomer (born 1962, which depending on where you draw the line is the last of the baby boom, or the very beginning of Gen X)

Raskin had previously been the top Democrat on House Oversight, so that spot became vacant.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ran for that leadership position on House Oversight. she's 35 years old, has an excellent media presence, and is well-known nationally.

instead of AOC, Democrats chose a 74-year old, Gerry Connolly.

and not just any 74-year old...they chose a 74-year-old who has cancer

and not just any 74-year old with cancer...a 74-year-old who has an especially deadly form of cancer

and not just any 74-year old with an especially deadly form of cancer...esophageal cancer. cancer of the esophagus. you know, that thing that's in your throat. you know what else is in your throat, right next to your esophagus? your voice box. that thing you speak with.

Democrats in a nutshell: the guy we put in charge of oversight of the Trump administration...there's a good chance he's going to have surgery that renders him physically incapable of speaking.

oh golly why would anyone do such a thing

here's a totally unrelated news article from about a year ago: UnitedHealth uses AI model with 90% error rate to deny care, lawsuit alleges