gruez

9 ms·

211.
by gruez 2mo ago
>turned out the password protection is useless, all assets and everything are in there unprotected, including the 3D models inside That's only true for the edit protection password, which obviously can't be implemented in a foo
212.
by gruez 2mo ago
>That's a cop out. You can do both. Do you really think they haven't tried to fix the issues? There's no reason why they wouldn't. Except you know, all the incentives for keeping the current system in place. Financial
213.
by gruez 2mo ago
>The twirly mustached exec is Zuck himself who wants to target 11 year olds. By having a person object to him, he's no longer evil??? That itself is hearsay, from someone who's apparently opposed to whatever Meta is doing. Taki
214.
by gruez 2mo ago
>> Internal chats within the company stated, “Oh good, we’re going after <13 year olds now? Zuck has been talking about that for a while…targeting 11 year olds feels like tobacco companies a couple decades ago (and today). Like we’
215.
by gruez 2mo ago
Yeah, like Jack Ma (of alibaba) who disappeared for months, and got his company's IPO canceled, all because he criticized the government's financial regulations a bit too much? Trump wishes he has as much ability to put people beh
216.
by gruez 2mo ago
Which seems exactly like the sort of thing an authoritarian regime would do to placate the masses. Make an example of some big boss, but conveniently fail to fix or even acknowledge the issues that led to the crisis in the first place. In t
217.
by gruez 2mo ago
As someone else noted "Hook, hold, harvest and hide" is the framing from the plaintiffs. There likely wasn't some twirly mustached executive giving a presentation with those words on the slide deck. Instead the "decision
218.
by gruez 2mo ago
>And perhaps, again, "what most businesses do" is not really a good defense to hide behind? If you're doing what every one else is doing, but only you are being prosecuted, that's reeks of political motivated prosecut
219.
by gruez 2mo ago
>Child Safety laws are just mass surveillance in disguise which has always been Meta's game plan since day one. I thought they were pushing for on-device age verification, which from a "mass surveillance" perspective is pr
220.
by gruez 2mo ago
I did a cursory search and it seems to be as regulated as restaurants are. There's an application process and on site inspections, but that's about it. The only thing notable is background checks.
221.
by gruez 2mo ago
>They're thinking it's serious like Gas Town, that's why It's not? https://munderdiffl.in/#pricing
222.
by gruez 2mo ago
US was also running "pretty well" under Trump 1
223.
by gruez 2mo ago
So what does this mean for all the hacking competitions (ie. CTFs) for humans? If it turns out one of the attendees went to hack for North Korea should the organizers of the CTF be prosecuted?
224.
by gruez 2mo ago
>"Simulacra continuously fabricates a churning crowd of plausible-but-fake wireless devices around you — drowning your real devices in noise so that passive trackers, ALPR add-ons, and co-travel correlators can't reliably pick
225.
by gruez 2mo ago
>the person who was baselessly charged with CSAM, then terrorism Source? Are we still talking about Samuel Tunick? The article doesn't mention it, and so far as I can tell he was only charged at the border crossing for obstruction.
226.
by gruez 2mo ago
Well that's the thing with destroying evidence. If you destroyed it, it becomes harder (or impossible) to prove you did the crime. That's why it's not uncommon for people to be only charged with stuff like "obstruction o
227.
by gruez 2mo ago
"obese nazis"?
228.
by gruez 2mo ago
Please try again with an actual argument rather than attacking people based on which "side" I'm on.
229.
by gruez 2mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampering_with_evidence
230.
by gruez 2mo ago
>Amendment 4: He was charged for destroying evidence, not refusing a search >Amendment 5: Destroying evidence isn't testimony. Moreover he would have been in the clear if he just kept his mouth shut.
231.
by gruez 2mo ago
>There is a difference between exploding a bomb Mines (in wars, as implied by "solider") aren't illegal. Also even for the first example there are certainly improvised explosives you can set up that isn't criminal to
232.
by gruez 2mo ago
So old books are valuable because old paper is valuable? I understand why the Gutenberg bible might be valuable but do we really need thousands of mass paperback novels?
233.
by gruez 2mo ago
Not really. A trivial example: smut novels. I'm sure AI companies want them for training so their models work better as AI girlfriends/boyfriends, but I doubt much would be lost if the bottom 50% (by readership) of such books went
234.
by gruez 2mo ago
"eavesdropped"? "spied"? Whatever it is, slapping "steal" on it because what was done is wrong, and stealing is wrong, is the same sloppy logic that the copyright lobby used in the 80s/90s.
235.
by gruez 2mo ago
>The creativity requirements may seem arbitrary but there’s a legal distinction between a sculpture and a standard brick. Or more relevantly, a recipe find on recipe sites (with the author's entire backstory) vs a sequence of instru
236.
by gruez 2mo ago
With this kinda of stuff it's hard to tell whether the person is doing it unironically, or knows it's "performative art". A while ago there was a trend of using a tool which imperceptibly perturbs an image in a way that
237.
by gruez 2mo ago
>Three pictures from Getty Images and generic copy. Was this assembled by an AI? Back in the day it would just be called a "slow news day"
238.
by gruez 2mo ago
>Both. Google has plenty of government contracts, they are undoubtedly pushing for more surveillance, I don't get it, are the government contracts somehow contingent on them oppressing users and stifling open source? >we are now
239.
by gruez 2mo ago
My guess is that all their code is in their monorepo (google3), and they don't want to set up a tool to sync it to a public git repo, so the easiest way is just to have someone create a tarball on demand.
240.
by gruez 2mo ago
Submitting the form isn't too hard, so there's not much to be gained by getting a non-affiliated volunteer to do it. Also if they're not the ones requesting it, it becomes hard to ascertain the authenticity of the links (eg.

More ›