A lot of these statistics aren't very useful for mining insights from the graph, from a technical standpoint of how the graph works or from a personal standpoint of how the graph is interacting with my personal data.

Two very modern counterexamples:

https://app.opencve.io/cve/CVE-2026-83844

https://www.sentinelone.com/vulnerability-database/cve-2026-...

The information they feed from is simple, clear, and static. And yet the both of them are hallucinating mitigations, compromise indicators, and other details of the vector that flatly don't exist.

The question GP posed wasn't bait. It's still a blatant problem in 2026. It's not just shitty cheap models, either. Just this morning I caught 6.1 Sol (via Codex) incorrectly answering a question about the codebase it was actively working in.

So I guess either some random OS component is listening to the network and just-as-inexplicably asking Paint to do something for it. Or one of Paint's outbound connections is vulnerable if hijacked by a mitm. Network interception's one of the examples used for the "High" Attack Complexity rating that MS gave this CVE. Maybe powered by eMudhra for any systems that haven't revoked those certs? That'd be topical.

But still wouldn't really make sense. A patch for machines that are actively updating Paint but dodging cert revocations? Nothing really makes sense about this silly Paint CVE.

> After applying the update, verify that the target Windows systems are running a version that includes the CVE fix before disabling legacy file‑open processing in Paint.

Which is complete nonsense. "Legacy file-open processing" isn't a real configurable option in Paint and this seems to suggest that enabling it is some sort of mitigation. The resolution is simply to update Paint.

> The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.

> An unauthenticated attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a specially crafted packet to an affected service over the network. Successful exploitation could allow the attacker to execute code on the target system. No authentication or user interaction is required.

AI, however, does readily assist in outsourcing critical thinking. Which is why it's silly for Google to conflate Search and Gemini. And why it's silly that you're doing approximately the same.

Ban smartphones because their addictive social media apps are on it distracting them from the class. The computers are school-controlled and filtered devices. This is plain enough that it shouldn't require explanation.

Why should they not have access to a basic internet tool at school?

Public library? They're at a school. They're sitting in front of a computer. They should be able to use it to find information. You keep reaching for "why do they need it?" but there's no reason why they should not have access to search engines. I provided several examples and there are very many more out there. Not every class teaches from a textbook.