Pretty much. The best way to insert supply chain exploits is to embed them in a stack exchange answer to a beginner's question.<p>This isn't new, we've always had programmers who programmed by "recipe" rather than first principles, and DRY paints that as a feature, but it underlies a lot of pain and cost over the years.<p>To give some context, I inherited some kernel code when I worked in the Systems Group at Sun Microsystems in the 80's that was written by a mathematician who had become a programmer because the money was in programming, not applied math. They had cut and pasted code they didn't understand in order to achieve the result they wanted out of the code they were "writing." When I inherited it I read through it and found a couple of dozen ways the code would panic the kernel[1]. Once fixing those obvious issues, it became clear that the original owner of the code didn't really understand what computation did. They had an idea, and mathematically they could show that it was correct, but literally no ability to express that algorithmically.<p>This is not a "new" problem but it is an important one that managers of software engineers need to watch for.<p>[1] At the time the only difference between "kernel" programmers and "application" programmers was that kernel programmers recognized that unsafe code crashed the whole system, not just the application. So they tended to be cultivated from paranoid programmers.