Hizonner

50 ms·

871.
by Hizonner 2y ago
One of the more underappreciated negative effects of COPPA has been normalizing sites' asking for birth dates they do not need and should not have.
872.
by Hizonner 2y ago
Anybody who gets their worldview from the movies deserves a big, hearty chunk of any resulting blame.
873.
by Hizonner 2y ago
> It's not a copy of it, and when you distribute it you're not distributing the original. A compressed (or normally encrypted) version wouldn't be a copy that way, either, but I would still absolutely go down for distribut
874.
by Hizonner 2y ago
I'm more thinking about the pre-Chrome era. The DANE drafts weren't even written, let alone standardized, until it was already hard to move and really hard to get people to move. That slowness had a whole lot to do with obstru
875.
by Hizonner 2y ago
But the pitch-shifted song is still recognizably a creative work . It has identifiable, humanly comprehensible forms of all the original creative elements that Swift originally put into it (plus I guess a de minimis amount of extra creativ
876.
by Hizonner 2y ago
Maybe, but... "Fair use" is pretty much entirely a US concept, and similar concepts in other countries aren't isomorphic to it. The model does have a radically different form from its inputs. So you could easily imagine that
877.
by Hizonner 2y ago
The software that creates the model is the product of creativity. The model itself is the product of mechanically applying that software to datasets that are (a) assembled with minimal, if any creativity, and (b) definitely not assembled
878.
by Hizonner 2y ago
> that can't happen with the vast majority of these models because they're trained on unlicensed data Tough beans? There's lots of actual software that can't be open source because it embeds stuff with incompatible re
879.
by Hizonner 2y ago
> Which makes it a database or dataset and very much protected by copyright. Not every collection of numbers is a database, and a database is not the same thing as a dataset. Databases have limited copyright-like protection in some place
880.
by Hizonner 2y ago
As far as I know, none have been released. And it doesn't even really make sense, because, as I said, the models aren't copyrightable to begin with and therefore aren't licensable either. However, plenty of open source softw
881.
by Hizonner 2y ago
> Why inadequate (in the absolute)? The point of X.509 certificates is that you can't rely on information you get either from the DNS or from the HTTP server. If you could, you wouldn't need the whole mess in the first place. S
882.
by Hizonner 2y ago
You also might want to "clarify" that it is not open source (and neither are any of the other "open source" models). If you want to call it something, try "open weights", although the usage restrictions make ev
883.
by Hizonner 2y ago
The browsers don't have any contract with Alegeus, nor any relationship at all. They owe Alegeus nothing. They're not covered in the TRO. I doubt the TRO could legally be extended to cover them. Browsers do have a relationship
884.
by Hizonner 2y ago
OK, true, that's one of the (inadequate) methods that the CA/BF permits for verification at issuance, and I had forgotten about that. You can also verify over HTTP or email (egad...). You would think that if Alegeus controlled t
885.
by Hizonner 2y ago
Um, what are you talking about? Unless you use DANE (which nobody does, and the browsers don't check it even if they did), you do not have to change any DNS records, or touch the DNS at all, to update a certificate. There is no DNS i
886.
by Hizonner 2y ago
1. It does look like there's very strong reason to believe that these particular certs were not misissued, in the sense that the people who have the private keys really are the people who control the domains. Stronger than the sort
887.
by Hizonner 2y ago
I'm guessing this is going to be even more opinionated than, say, Google has started to be, about what I'm allowed to search for and which results it's good for me to see. And... > Publishers will have a way to “manage how
888.
by Hizonner 2y ago
I'm not sure it's reasonable to just treat it as an AMI problem, given that AMI literally named the key "DO NOT TRUST - AMI Test PK". Obviously AMI was stupid to trust the OEMs to, you know, have a clue what they were
889.
by Hizonner 2y ago
... except that in my experience most mechanics are competent with brakes, and most motherboard makers are not competent with cryptography, or indeed with anything having to do with software. The auto repair industry has certain standar
890.
by Hizonner 2y ago
Android 7 is when Google switched from dead simple full-"disk" encryption to per-file hackery with complicated key management. Basically the whole data encryption scheme changed.
891.
by Hizonner 2y ago
Erm. The read head and the write head in a magnetic drive are the same head . You can't keep the head away from the surface if you want to read the disk. But you can disable power to the driver that puts write current into the head.
892.
by Hizonner 2y ago
You could probably get away with just forbidding software license agreements that disclaim liability for any and every kind of negligent stupidity.
893.
by Hizonner 2y ago
I strongly suspect that most or all of the modern "hardware" write-protect switches are actually just suggestions to the drive firmware. Which may very well itself be modifiable.
894.
by Hizonner 2y ago
Platform keys can be replaced given physical access to the computer. In fact they can generally be replaced by regular UEFI updates. The problem here is in trusting, nay expecting, your average motherboard maker to either know anything ab
895.
by Hizonner 2y ago
Maybe they only apply it to shared files?
896.
by Hizonner 2y ago
Wow, really? You can't store an encrypted file on Google Drive? I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I am, mildly. ... so it has no utility at all, since you definitely shouldn't be storing any unencrypted files on it.
897.
by Hizonner 2y ago
Google Drive is a cloud service. Words have meanings outside of Google's brand names, Laddie.
898.
by Hizonner 2y ago
Encrypt the file and don't upload the key.
899.
by Hizonner 2y ago
People not stupid enough to use Google's cloud services not affected.
900.
by Hizonner 2y ago
> What it's scanning for is material it believes to be copyrighted, All "material" created by any human is copyrighted, and has been for decades. The question is who owns what rights, which Google can't know. > dec

More ›