There doesn't seem to be audio support (I searched for audio and sound). There seems to be the beginning of USB support (under drivers/usb/xhci, for example).
I know it is old, but the classic is a classic for reasons. It is criminal this survey does not include the venerable Secrets of the Glasgow Haskell Compiler inliner by Simon Peyton Jones et al.
There is a benchmark for performance work, and I think it is not being optimized by model vendors. The latest result from GSO is that both Opus 4.6 and 4.7 slightly outperforms GPT 5.5. This also matches my experience.
No you really can't. Being able to factor 15 but not 21 with Shor's algorithm is normal. I know it sounds absurd, but it really is that way. Because factoring 21 is about 100x times harder than factoring 15.
The main point is that just as you can't ask for tiny nuclear explosion because nuclear physics just doesn't work that way, you also can't ask for factoring of 21 with Shor's algorithm. Quantum computing just doesn't work that way, sorry.
Sometimes these days, I'll survey the spectacular recent progress in fault-tolerance, 2-qubit gate fidelities, programmable hundred-qubit systems, etc., only to be answered with a sneer: "What's the biggest number that Shor's algorithm has factored? Still 15 after all these years? Haha, apparently the emperor has no clothes!" I've commented that this is sort of like dismissing the Manhattan Project as hopelessly stalled in 1944, on the ground that so far it hasn't produced even a tiny nuclear explosion... If there's a reason why you think it can't work beyond a certain scale, say so. But don't fixate on one external benchmark and ignore everything happening under the hood, if the experts are telling you that under the hood is where all the action now is, and your preferred benchmark is only relevant later.
Last three CVEs are collections of bugs. CVE-2026-6784 is a collection of 55 bugs. CVE-2026-6785 is a collection of 154 bugs. CVE-2026-6786 is a collection of 107 bugs.
As for credits, I think bugs are ultimately credited to people, and this time Mozilla people used Mythos, as opposed to Anthropic people using Opus or Mythos.
The gap between formal and informal has been pointed out as an Achilles' heel of formal methods from the dawn of the field, so critique is not particularly new. The standard reference is Social processes and proofs of theorems and programs (1979), which is worth reading.
While I think all of your design choices are defensible, I do think you should release the full human baseline data. The second best action count is fine, but other choices are reasonable as well.
The study is likely "SWE-CI: Evaluating Agent Capabilities in Maintaining Codebases via Continuous Integration". Regression rate plot is figure 6.
Read the study to understand what it is measuring and how it was measured. As I understand parent's summary is fine, but you want to understand it first before repeating it to others.