Bulletproof Malicious Email Test

Nothing says "I trust absolutely no one" like seeing a plain HTTP link and immediately thinking about all the ways your data could be harvested, sold, or stolen. That little 'S' in HTTPS isn't just a letter—it's the difference between "my password is probably fine" and "welp, time to change every password I've used since 2011." Seasoned developers don't see HTTP anymore. We just see red flags and a ticket that should've been fixed before the product even launched.

Ah yes, the classic "I store all my passwords in a place even Google can't find them." Because nothing says "responsible developer" like casually browsing the dark web to retrieve that password you definitely didn't write down on a Post-it note that fell behind your desk. Next level security strategy: make your password so sketchy that you need Tor just to remember it!

So you're checking if an email is already taken by sending it to the server, getting back a list of all registered emails , and then doing a client-side .includes() check? That's like asking the bank to give you everyone's account numbers just to verify yours doesn't exist yet. Not only is this a massive security vulnerability (congrats, you just leaked your entire user database to anyone with DevTools open), but it's also hilariously inefficient. Why return an array of potentially millions of emails when the server could just return a boolean? The backend dev is probably crying somewhere. The cherry on top? After doing all this client-side "validation," you're still showing success messages without any actual server confirmation. Chef's kiss of terrible architecture. 🤌

So Microsoft wants to eliminate C and C++ by 2030 using AI to rewrite their entire codebase. Because nothing says "brilliant strategy" like letting algorithms rewrite millions of lines of battle-tested code that's been running critical systems for decades. The hubris is *chef's kiss*. They're so busy flexing their AI muscles that they forgot to ask the most important question: just because you CAN automate the rewriting of foundational infrastructure doesn't mean you SHOULD. What could possibly go wrong with AI touching code that powers Windows, Office, and Azure? It's not like memory safety bugs are subtle or anything. The Jeff Goldblum meme from Jurassic Park is the perfect response here. They were so preoccupied with whether they could use AI to eliminate C/C++, they didn't stop to think if they should. Because replacing decades of institutional knowledge and battle-hardened code with AI-generated Rust (presumably) is definitely going to go smoothly. No edge cases, no undefined behavior gotchas, just pure algorithmic magic. Sure.

Rust evangelists: *screeching intensifies* when they discover 19.11% of Rust libraries use the unsafe keyword, while C++ sits smugly at the dinner table knowing it doesn't need to mark anything as unsafe because everything is potentially unsafe by default. It's like bragging about having 19.11% of your codebase labeled "might explode" while C++ just assumes you're smart enough to know the whole thing is a minefield. Memory safety theater at its finest!

When your npm install summons mysterious Japanese packages and your cat-themed AI companions start discussing supply chain security... You're basically running npm install malware at this point. The dependency tree just got a whole lot more suspicious! Those cute anime avatars are the perfect disguise for what's really happening - your project is one kawaii face away from being completely compromised. Next time you blindly accept those package.json updates, remember that Vanilla isn't just following Chocola... she's injecting her own "special" code too.