And with machine code, you got to keep track of what’s in the stack, CPU registers, … to make a sense of what the code and the next branch command does. It’s completely unalike processing human language. LLMs aren’t really set up to do it.

I think as written, I’d say these words are more FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt)

And I’ve been running servers for quite some time as well. SearXNG seems rock solid. And it’s tested. And when I had security issues in general, it was because we didn’t do timely updates. I haven’t really ever been affected by zero days in my hobby linux endeavours. Okay, we had a few nasty things in some more fundamental building blocks and sometimes people using slower distributions had been fine… But I don’t think it applies here. With these kinds of things, the latest stable release is your best bet. Not a previous version with bugs in it, which have been fixed since. And especially not an unmaintained project.

They’re likely referring to the sentences outlining the differences between searx and SearXNG in searX README (archived Github repo). I think it was about some feature to report bugs to the project. And NG having a faster pace of development.

Hmmh, always the same thing. On release, it’s just an announcement with a promise to open “key components” sometime. I’ll add this to the list of bookmarks to revisit at a later date. I wish they’d just get it ready and only then publish things.

Also helps the general population to take part in science. Plus, you can read things your (small) academic institution didn’t subscribe to. And when I tried it, it was super convenient. Just put in the DOI and get a paper, no other steps like university logins, VPNs etc needed.