gruez

6 ms·

91.
by gruez 27d ago
>which could be in the details of how care is provided and its quality This has "true communism has never been tried" vibes. When enacting a policy, you can't guarantee it will come out optimally, so it makes sense to fact
92.
by gruez 28d ago
>connection != account That's not much of a distinction considering that it's trivial to create an email/account (without a phone number, even!) with fake information.
93.
by gruez 28d ago
>I didn't say anything about what al-Qaeda wanted Given that Bin Laden is al-Qaeda's leader, it's approximately correct to treat them as the same entity, unless you're arguing that there's some factional struggle
94.
by gruez 28d ago
Which was why it was widely considered a dumb move on the part of Bin Laden. It attracted all sorts of unwanted attention, that ultimately led to the the core group losing all relevance. The other al-Qaeda franchises might be doing well,
95.
by gruez 28d ago
>GrapheneOS is also saying some suspicious stuff on Mastodon in which they are failing the vibe check. Using "failing the vibe check" as your first argument fails my vibe check. >They are suddenly very AI obsessed, which is
96.
by gruez 28d ago
Presumably whoever is doing the acquisition would look at the financial numbers in addition to the subscriber numbers? Then they'll notice a discrepancy between subscriber count and how much $ is coming in, which makes this whole thing
97.
by gruez 28d ago
>They've never witnessed functioning policy on any front. Bin Laden wanted to destroy America, and he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. This is revisionism. The agenda of al-Qaeda was to establish a caliphate. The whole "al‑
98.
by gruez 28d ago
>Another post gave an example of a real SAT question, which I will present below: As other X users have noted, it might just be a "easy" question and not reflective of the entire test. Also from a test perspective it makes sens
99.
by gruez 28d ago
No, it's a numbers game on both sides. Attackers are after hundreds or thousands of accounts, not just one. Defenders knows that exactly 0 hacks are impossible to achieve, and they're just trying to limit losses from fraud, but al
100.
by gruez 28d ago
Youtube page, which has auto-generated transcripts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLEkUGuw374 tl;dw: 1. it's expensive 2. requires online connection and account to unlock bootloader 3. lenovo (the parent company) had
101.
by gruez 28d ago
>CAPTCHAs don't work anymore, at this point. AI can trivially solve them. The point is to raise the cost, not to create some impenetrable barrier. A $5 vps can make hundreds of requests per second. IP bans and rate limiting forces p
102.
by gruez 28d ago
I just tested and it's the "real" recaptcha, with requests to google and everything. It still might be "fake" in the sense that the server rejects any response, even valid ones, which is probably what's actuall
103.
by gruez 28d ago
>CAPTCHA for login should just be outright illegal How do you prevent credential stuffing attacks? >especially if it blocks important functionality like closing your account. That just falls under standard tort law, not to mention rec
104.
by gruez 28d ago
I'm not sure why this is downvoted. It approximately checks out. An "assessment" only counts if your server tries to verify it, so you could conceivably use recaptcha for "free" if you don't bother validating t
105.
by gruez 28d ago
They have some spat with cloudflare, so they "punish" cloudflare users by sending them into infinite captcha loops
106.
by gruez 29d ago
The far more likely explanation is that your unifi dashboard's device identification logic is broken and is misreporting the device. Otherwise it doesn't make sense for samsung to engage it a massive conspiracy of putting wifi har
107.
by gruez 29d ago
Which? All I've seen over the years is people repeating the same rumor.
108.
by gruez 29d ago
>and it will connect to any open WiFi I've seen this claim made over and over again for various smart TVs, but so far I haven't seen any concrete evidence of this, only random speculation.
109.
by gruez 29d ago
>Mobile first isnt exactly a new concept either... It's not a landing page for some SaaS, it's a manuscript for some academic publication. "Mobile first" is definitely not top of mind.
110.
by gruez 29d ago
>a PDF and zoom and it's still messed up for reading Works fine on my machine. Maybe don't view from a phone, I guess?
111.
by gruez 29d ago
>The possibility that judges can abuse constitutional interpretation is an argument for doing it carefully, not selectively. Or, as Joseph Story put it: "The circumstance, that so construed the power may be abused, is no answer. All
112.
by gruez 29d ago
Give how vague constitutional clauses have been (ab)used to sneak in legislation through the judicial system (eg. roe v wade, or louisiana v. callais), the last thing we need are even more avenues to sue the government just because the plai
113.
by gruez 29d ago
But there's open models that are (pessimistically) 1 year behind? It's not like if openai decided to rugpull everyone, we'd be going back to writing code by hand and all the developers who forgot how to fizzbuzz would be scre
114.
by gruez 29d ago
Right, but OP's implication is that they're trying to placate the masses (that somehow read the economist?), even though a few months before they were putting out alarmist covers. You can't have it both ways. If you're a
115.
by gruez 29d ago
>The Economist, Silicon Valley's primary submarine, dispels the notion that AI causes unemployment because SV has realized that the peasants get unruly. ??? From a few months ago: https://www.economist.com/content-as
116.
by gruez 1mo ago
>Gotta agree. Turning tracking cookies off? Sure! Turning session cookies off and then complaining that the server doesn’t remember you? Uhhh… No, because there are technologies that don't have this issue, eg. privacy pass.
117.
by gruez 1mo ago
Are you thinking of ETH? All the bitcoin classic forks are over various aspect of network rules (eg. block size or block reward), not to roll back a transaction like ETH classic.
118.
by gruez 1mo ago
That argument also works against anubis. Why bother forcing clients to solve a PoW challenge, when you're fighting a bunch of unsophisticated attackers that will be deterred by a javascript challenge that requires them to solve `result
119.
by gruez 1mo ago
>If scrapers reuse a cookie, traditional anti-abuse mechanisms will work. Scrapers can't change their strategy? It's not hard to think of mitigations: keep on using a session until you're banned, and failing that rotate yo
120.
by gruez 1mo ago
You're selectively quoting the comment. It's clearly talking about the PoW aspect not being a serious impediment.

More ›