baod_rate

the judgement did not require they delete the books from their archives, only that they stop lending out digital copies of books fitting specific criteria. which should be obvious because possession not copyright infringement, reproduction/distribution is.

in fact, the judgement specfically allows Internet Archive to continue to use those books "for the purpose of accessibility for 'eligible persons'"

what's your methodology for that 95% figure? because Internet Archive themselves mention no such clause:

The lawsuit only concerns our book lending program. The injunction clarifies that the Publisher Plaintiffs will notify us of their commercially available books, and the Internet Archive will expeditiously remove them from lending. Additionally, Judge Koeltl also signed an orderin favor of the Internet Archive, agreeing with our request that the injunction should only cover books available in electronic format, and not the publishers’ full catalog of books in print

Because this case was limited to our book lending program, the injunction does not significantly impact our other library services.  The Internet Archive may still digitize books for preservation purposes, and may still provide access to our digital collections in a number of ways, including through interlibrary loan and by making accessible formats available to people with qualified print disabilities. We may continue to display “short portions” of books as is consistent with fair use—for example, Wikipedia references (as shown in the image above). The injunction does not affect lending of out-of-print books. And of course, the Internet Archive will still make millions of public domain texts available to the public without restriction.

Debian says they intentionally opted not to remove these images from Docker Hub and to leave them as historical artifacts, telling users to only use up-to-date images and not old ones.

The maintainers made this decision as they believe the requirements for exploitation are unlikely, such as requiring sshd installed and running on the container, the attacker having network access to the SSH service on that container, and using a private key that matches the backdoor's trigger logic.

Idk that seems pretty reasonable to me. I think I've eojly ever needed to enable ssh on a container once

In fact, that model (conceptually, though not technically) is how most fediverse software already work

Researchers from AquaSec have noted its ability to automatically switch to backup mining pools if a primary one becomes unavailable, ensuring continuous operation. This level of sophistication has led security experts to believe that large language models or other automation frameworks may have played a role in its development.

Is it just me or is this not a very convincing rationale.

It's just a consequence of independent file formats. There's bound to be overlap in what counts as technically a valid X and also technically a valid Y. It's pretty much unavoidable. The tricky part is figuring out what fits in that sliver of the venn diagram but is also useful as malware.