Truck was on a different frequency from the aircraft so they couldn’t even hear each others’ clearances.

Also first time ATC told the truck to stop it wasn’t too clear who the message was addressed to. It’s a bit hard to hear “Truck1” there, not clear who he wants to stop. The second time, one can argue by the time “stop” command was heard it might have been better to gun the engine. As the truck sort of slowed down in the middle of the runway.

Does the “don’t implement your own cryptography” advice apply to multi-billion companies, or it’s just for regular, garden variety developers?

Some of the issues like validating input seem like should have been noticed. But of course one would need to understand how it works to notice it. And certainly, in a company like CF someone would know how this is supposed to work…

Surely the devs would have at least opened wikipedia to read

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FourQ

> In order to avoid small subgroup attacks,[6] all points are verified to lie in an N-torsion subgroup of the elliptic curve, where N is specified as a 246-bit prime dividing the order of the group.

That's great news. I never liked the newly sprung up licenses. I understand the background but always felt a burden having to read and understand them, and wonder how they'd hold up in practice. GPL licenses have been around for decades and is something people, including legal teams, know more about.

And when I say "know", I don't mean "like": it could be that this will just make it easier for a particular team to decide that it doesn't want to deal with the AGPL, and they should go find something else, but at least it's clear what it is. As opposed to some BSSXYZWL license that you never heard of, which kind sounds like it's open source but kind of isn't...