BREAKING NEWS
LATEST POSTS
-
The Perils of Technical Debt – Understanding Its Impact on Security, Usability, and Stability
In software development, “technical debt” is a term used to describe the accumulation of shortcuts, suboptimal solutions, and outdated code that occur as developers rush to meet deadlines or prioritize immediate goals over long-term maintainability. While this concept initially seems abstract, its consequences are concrete and can significantly affect the security, usability, and stability of software systems.
The Nature of Technical Debt
Technical debt arises when software engineers choose a less-than-ideal implementation in the interest of saving time or reducing upfront effort. Much like financial debt, these decisions come with an interest rate: over time, the cost of maintaining and updating the system increases, and more effort is required to fix problems that stem from earlier choices. In extreme cases, technical debt can slow development to a crawl, causing future updates or improvements to become far more difficult than they would have been with cleaner, more scalable code.
Impact on Security
One of the most significant threats posed by technical debt is the vulnerability it creates in terms of software security. Outdated code often lacks the latest security patches or is built on legacy systems that are no longer supported. Attackers can exploit these weaknesses, leading to data breaches, ransomware, or other forms of cybercrime. Furthermore, as systems grow more complex and the debt compounds, identifying and fixing vulnerabilities becomes increasingly challenging. Failing to address technical debt leaves an organization exposed to security risks that may only become apparent after a costly incident.
Impact on Usability
Technical debt also affects the user experience. Systems burdened by outdated code often become clunky and slow, leading to poor usability. Engineers may find themselves continuously patching minor issues rather than implementing larger, user-centric improvements. Over time, this results in a product that feels antiquated, is difficult to use, or lacks modern functionality. In a competitive market, poor usability can alienate users, causing a loss of confidence and driving them to alternative products or services.
Impact on Stability
Stability is another critical area impacted by technical debt. As developers add features or make updates to systems weighed down by previous quick fixes, they run the risk of introducing bugs or causing system crashes. The tangled, fragile nature of code laden with technical debt makes troubleshooting difficult and increases the likelihood of cascading failures. Over time, instability in the software can erode both the trust of users and the efficiency of the development team, as more resources are dedicated to resolving recurring issues rather than innovating or expanding the system’s capabilities.
The Long-Term Costs of Ignoring Technical Debt
While technical debt can provide short-term gains by speeding up initial development, the long-term costs are much higher. Unaddressed technical debt can lead to project delays, escalating maintenance costs, and an ever-widening gap between current code and modern best practices. The more technical debt accumulates, the harder and more expensive it becomes to address. For many companies, failing to pay down this debt eventually results in a critical juncture: either invest heavily in refactoring the codebase or face an expensive overhaul to rebuild from the ground up.
Conclusion
Technical debt is an unavoidable aspect of software development, but understanding its perils is essential for minimizing its impact on security, usability, and stability. By actively managing technical debt—whether through regular refactoring, code audits, or simply prioritizing long-term quality over short-term expedience—organizations can avoid the most dangerous consequences and ensure their software remains robust and reliable in an ever-changing technological landscape.
-
Debayer – A free command line tool to convert camera raw images into scene-linear exr
https://github.com/jedypod/debayer
The only required dependency is oiiotool. However other “debayer engines” are also supported.
- OpenImageIO – oiiotool is used for converting debayered tif images to exr.
- Debayer Engines
- RawTherapee – Powerful raw development software used to decode raw images. High quality, good selection of debayer algorithms, and more advanced raw processing like chromatic aberration removal.
- LibRaw – dcraw_emu commandline utility included with LibRaw. Optional alternative for debayer. Simple, fast and effective.
- Darktable – Uses darktable-cli plus an xmp config to process.
- vkdt – uses vkdt-cli to debayer. Pretty experimental still. Uses Vulkan for image processing. Stupidly fast. Pretty limited.
-
LibRaw.org – Free interface for extracting data out of RAW images
The LibRaw library provides a simple and unified interface for extracting out of RAW files generated by digital photo cameras the following:
- RAW data (pixel values)
- Metadata necessary for processing RAW (geometry, CFA / Bayer pattern, black level, white balance, etc.)
- Embedded preview / thumbnail.
-
PTGui 13 beta adds control through a Patch Editor
Additions:
- Patch Editor (PTGui Pro)
- DNG output
- Improved RAW / DNG handling
- JPEG 2000 support
- Performance improvements
-
The riddles humans can solve but AI computers cannot
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240912-what-riddles-teach-us-about-the-human-mind
“As human beings, it’s very easy for us to have common sense, and apply it at the right time and adapt it to new problems,” says Ilievski, who describes his branch of computer science as “common sense AI”. But right now, AI has a “general lack of grounding in the world”, which makes that kind of basic, flexible reasoning a struggle.
AI excels at pattern recognition, “but it tends to be worse than humans at questions that require more abstract thinking”, says Xaq Pitkow, an associate professor at Carnegie Mellon University in the US, who studies the intersection of AI and neuroscience. In many cases, though, it depends on the problem.
A bizarre truth about AI is we have no idea how it works. The same is true about the brain.
That’s why the best systems may come from a combination of AI and human work; we can play to the machine’s strengths, Ilievski says.
-
AI and the Law – CartoonBrew.com : Lionsgate signs deal with AI company Runway, hoping that AI can eliminate storyboard artists and VFX crews
The goal is to reduce costs by replacing traditional storyboard artists and VFX crews with AI-generated “cinematic video.” Lionsgate hopes to use this technology for both pre- and post-production processes. While the company promotes the cost-saving potential, the creative community has raised concerns, as Runway is currently facing a lawsuit over copyright infringement.
-
Clint Eastwood on the set of his latest movie
At the age of 94, this is what the great Clint Eastwood looks like.
Standing, lucid, brilliant, directing his latest film. Eastwood himself says it: “I don’t let the old man in. I keep myself busy. You have to stay active, alive, happy, strong, capable. I don’t let in the old critic, hostile, envious, gossiping, full of rage and complaints, of lack of courage, which denies to itself that old age can be creative, decisive, full of light and projection. Getting older is not for sissies.”
~Clint Eastwood
FEATURED POSTS
-
What the Boeing 737 MAX’s crashes can teach us about production business – the effects of commoditisation
Airplane manufacturing is no different from mortgage lending or insulin distribution or make-believe blood analyzing software (or VFX?) —another cash cow for the one percent, bound inexorably for the slaughterhouse.
The beginning of the end was “Boeing’s 1997 acquisition of McDonnell Douglas, a dysfunctional firm with a dilapidated aircraft plant in Long Beach and a CEO (Harry Stonecipher) who liked to use what he called the “Hollywood model” for dealing with engineers: Hire them for a few months when project deadlines are nigh, fire them when you need to make numbers.” And all that came with it. “Stonecipher’s team had driven the last nail in the coffin of McDonnell’s flailing commercial jet business by trying to outsource everything but design, final assembly, and flight testing and sales.”
It is understood, now more than ever, that capitalism does half-assed things like that, especially in concert with computer software and oblivious regulators.
There was something unsettlingly familiar when the world first learned of MCAS in November, about two weeks after the system’s unthinkable stupidity drove the two-month-old plane and all 189 people on it to a horrific death. It smacked of the sort of screwup a 23-year-old intern might have made—and indeed, much of the software on the MAX had been engineered by recent grads of Indian software-coding academies making as little as $9 an hour, part of Boeing management’s endless war on the unions that once represented more than half its employees.
Down in South Carolina, a nonunion Boeing assembly line that opened in 2011 had for years churned out scores of whistle-blower complaints and wrongful termination lawsuits packed with scenes wherein quality-control documents were regularly forged, employees who enforced standards were sabotaged, and planes were routinely delivered to airlines with loose screws, scratched windows, and random debris everywhere.
Shockingly, another piece of the quality failure is Boeing securing investments from all airliners, starting with SouthWest above all, to guarantee Boeing’s production lines support in exchange for fair market prices and favorite treatments. Basically giving Boeing financial stability independently on the quality of their product. “Those partnerships were but one numbers-smoothing mechanism in a diversified tool kit Boeing had assembled over the previous generation for making its complex and volatile business more palatable to Wall Street.”
