(I'm also unclear how the bit is supposed to actually flip under the applied electric charge without the fluorine and carbon having to pass through each other.)

Have we considered whether it's even a good idea to produce software at scales beyond human attention? I'm beginning to suspect that, in terms of the net amount of economic effort and sheer quantity of software produced, we are already creating simply too much software relative to the amount of economic effort we put into hardware, construction, and human capital. Most human needs and desires can only be met through manipulation of atoms, and it seems as though we've largely refocused on those which can be met through manipulation of numbers and symbols - not because anyone really wants their life to revolve around them to the exclusion of everything else - but because they're the easiest markets to profitably scale for the least amount of capital input.

It's difficult for me to express just how fun Uiua can be to use. It's rather like one of those Zachtronics games - both in that figuring out how to fit your task into the array-programming model can be a bit of a puzzle sometimes, and in that once you've done that it's an extremely quick and non-frustrating process to make it work. The pure essence of what makes programming enjoyable, for better and for worse. There's also just a lot less plumbing and documentation-reading involved; the flexibility and terseness of the glyphs means that a lot of things you might have to call out to a standard library for in other languages you can Just Write because the entire implementation could easily be of length comparable to the name. (There's also a lot less plumbing and documentation-reading involved because there's only, like, four Uiua libraries anyway. Less to plumb together. Like I said, what makes programming enjoyable, for better and for worse.)

(Why Uiua and not, like, APL? I actually find APL enormously more difficult to read, due to the syntax - APL glyphs have two context-dependent readings, depending on whether they're being used as an binary infix or a unary prefix, and figuring out how the parse tree breaks down when squinting at a sea of glyphs is painful. It's like a whole language of garden path sentences. Uiua glyphs have fixed arity and always mean exactly one thing; so there's twice as many glyphs, but parsing by sight-reading is way more straightforward.)

But I also agree that I shouldn't have to be guessing like this, and that it'd be better if they had more explanation.

I assume that it's meant that the malware infects an internet-connected computer, jumps to removable storage, and then hopefully that storage is plugged into the target computer, possibly through multiple intermediate infections? But the fact that viruses can spread via thumbdrives is hardly novel either.

And the kicker, of how you get the files out of the air-gap, is also not mentioned; "ESET says that during its research, it was not able to identify any Ramsay exfiltration module just yet." I'm certainly aware of a number of sexy proof-of-concept side-channel attacks that modulate things like fan noise or graphics card activity or infrasound to try and exfiltrate data in a way that an external agent could pick up, but there's no evidence that this malware uses any of them; perhaps the hope is that another infected flash drive gets plugged in with an exfiltration module, slurps up the data, and then transmits it out when it's plugged back into a network-connected machine.

But I don't, ultimately, think that this will lead to the demise of Linux. Desktop Linux as a serious competitor for a general-use operating system was already not happening and not really showing any signs of growth beyond a tiny percentage of geeks; if it was going to happen then I think this would be a major barrier to it (why bother abandoning Windows or learning to dual-boot for Linux functionality when you can just use WSL?), but since it wasn't going to happen anyway, another reason it's not happening won't really matter.

(and on the other hand, by providing a less-scary way to get familiar with Linux from inside the operating system you're already used to, it might lower the barrier by an equal amount)

And Windows is resource-heavy and full of enough overhead (not to mention license fees) that it's never going to replace Linux in the server, high-performance, or embedded space, and this certainly won't effect that.

I suppose it may end up leading to fewer devs directly running Linux in the workplace, since the corp can issue them a more corp-comfy Windows machine instead and trust that they'll still be able to get work done, and all the odd troubles of getting Linux to work comfortably on a laptop just sort of vanish if you can just use Windows anyway, which could erase a good chunk of the tiny desktop/laptop marketshare that Linux already has. Or it may not. Who knows!

[1] The weird symbols might seem like an initial barrier to this, but they're only hard to read if you're unfamiliar with APL; they're actually very easy to learn and remember, as there's not that many of them and they all do very basic operations. However, APL loves operator overloading and likes to give operators different functions based on whether they're used in prefix ("monadic") or infix ("dyadic") forms, and there are also higher-order operators that consume the operators immediately adjacent to them and then operate on the expressions after that; all of this makes the nominally right-to-left parsing require a fair bit of mental effort instead of being able to rely on immediate visual recognition.

Although unlike this notation, APL is more typewriter-optimized; many symbols are made by double-striking two other more basic symbols, and the typesetting is simple and linear - it clearly doesn't take advantage of the full expressive power of handwriting. (Plus, its array-based programming flow, while extremely powerful, is very different from the way most people write algorithms these days)

Specifically, I can't function without prescription amphetamines, in dosages substantially greater than Erdos was taking.

There's several examples - Simulacra, Emily was Away, Hypnospace Outlaw - that use the interface of an (imaginary) computer as their primary framing device.

Or it could be useful in an immersive-sim type game where there happen to be computers you can interact with; you could immediately see the applications in some kind of hacking-themed game.