A new discovery that the AI-enabled feature’s historical data can be accessed even by hackers without administrator privileges only contributes to the growing sense that the feature is a “dumpster fire.”
Insiders are not MS employees, though. That is also not the same as trained QA or security. You or I can join the insiders program. It is essentially public beta
Alpha is For sure more accurate. But for me that also means big security holes like that should be plugged before insider. I’m also a bit biased being a QA engineer
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Precisely my point.
If people don’t want to be part of the internal testing, or part of the QA testing, then they shouldn’t be running “Insider” or “Preview” stuff.
Insiders are not MS employees, though. That is also not the same as trained QA or security. You or I can join the insiders program. It is essentially public beta
More like alpha. Public beta are the normal (non-Insider) “Preview” versions… then they use a staged update deployment for QA.
And yes, MS is saving a lot of money on trained employees by using paying customers as testers.
Alpha is For sure more accurate. But for me that also means big security holes like that should be plugged before insider. I’m also a bit biased being a QA engineer