Looked at this a while ago. This has been a study for a while. Def interesting, but it requires time to train the model, and also it doesn't work on just any keyboard. Also isn't accurate always with figuring out what was typed and takes a lot of guesswork with machine learning.
you should probably read the article, it's different than other methods:
What makes the attack different compared to other approaches is that it can reach a typing prediction accuracy of 43% (on average) even when:
-the recordings contain environmental noise -the recorded typing sessions for the same -target took place on different keyboard models
-the recordings were taken using a low-quality microphone
-the target is free to use any typing style
still only useful in extremely limited situations though... but it is neat that it uses timing of key strokes over the different sounds of each one...
Ok buddy. You're either a dumbass or you have such an inflated ego that you're illiterate or just couldn't be arsed to read my original comment. Before this became more mainstream, I actually looked into it and read a number of papers on how it works. It doesn't work on just any keyboard because it requires to be able to pick up the keys using sound, which a lot of membranes ones would be extremely difficult to do. Also, you have to factor in the surrounding noises as well. In a controlled lab yes it is much easier to do, but the technology is just not there yet and there is a guy who has been doing acoustic key logging research for years, and it still required a ML model that has to be trained for it to even start deciphering the keystrokes. I trust that guy over a moron with a cliché username such as xor. Now fuck off and come back when you actually know what you're talking about.
this is not the same technique that you read about… it’s new, novel, and works on timing not the sound of the keyboard
just read
idiot
Yknow, I tried to be nice before, but clearly you're more useless and pathetic than the idiots at the bottom "reacting" to content on YouTube. I pointed out how stupid your response was, but clearly you proved my point that you're illiterate.
If you can't be bothered to read the full comments (you probably did and just trying to make it seem as if you didn't), then don't bother replying, cunt. See, unlike you, I don't redact my words and bitch call me whatever you wanted in redacted. Please do because I don't care what a useless shitbag such as yourself says, since we can get more intelligence from Fox News. Go cry to your mother. Nobody needs your immature, almond sized brain responses. Your ego is so fragile that it makes glass bombproof, and you're a cesspool worse than aids. GTFO because nobody wants your pathetic waste of space of an existence on here.
at least i don't write paragraphs of lame non-sequiter insults and then pretend like the other person is "seething" with anger....
super duper cliche, btw
you're so fragile a minor correction sends you into a tantrum of denial and insults...
like a fragile narcissist who can't cope with their own mediocrity
There is a term that we call you: pseudo-intellect. The only one that is getting butt hurt is you, and now it is just funny. The blocking button is there for a reason. Learn to use it. Also, you didn't correct me at all, and your stupidity is both cringe and hilarious. Cope and seethe.
This is interesting, but given people short attention spans on the Internet, I’m concerned that they may only read the misinformation part and skip the part that explains that it’s misinformation.
So libs are right half the time when they're calling me a Russian bot? That actually makes a lot of sense. I feel like I live the same day every day, and all I do is go to the bread factory to make some bougie asshole rich.
Women are usually less inclined to do more technical stuff like that, the same way men are less inclined to become nurses and hair stylists.
That's how it's always been.
I like high powered flashlights and usually spend an average $100 USD on a flashlight whenever I buy one. Significantly fewer women are inclined to spend that much money on a flashlight. Much in the same way that most men are not inclined to spend $500 USD on a pair of shoes that you can't walk in.
My point is, men and women are different and therefore interested in different things
Generally speaking, men and women do different things due to social pressures and gender roles, it's not like you're biologically inclined to buy $100 flashlights.
There are many, many systemic reasons that there are fewer women in our fields, and it's vastly more complex than "women aren't interested in it"
I don't believe that is the only reason, some, sure, maybe. Having kids (one boy and one girl) and them growing up without any gender roles, and certainly no social pressures has shown me how drastic boys and girls are in interests. I think a lot of it is biology.
There may be a trend for certain biological influences to make it more likely for someone to enjoy something, however what people enjoy is absolutely, socially influenced. Even if you are raising your children without gender roles when you interact with them... Do they consume any amount of media? Do they leave the house? Do they go to school? I ask this because interacting with the world influences what we know about and what we know about and our experiences influence what we find interest in. If a boy has only ever seen Barbie played with by girls, and all the kids at school say barbie is "for girls", and the TV shows barbie and pink stuff being used by girls, then he may not even want to ask to play with it, even if a parent is providing it as an option.
Examples tangentially related to this article:
Programming used to be a job "for women". It was clerical work that very often went uncredited, and yet now, the field is (nearly) entirely male dominated, even if less than 10 years ago. It's commonly thought that a big reason for the shift is PC's and consoles in the 80's and 90's being primarily marketed to men and boys.
Teaching was a man's career in the early 1800's.. By the late 1800's it was around 60% women, and not it's nearly 75% female.
If our career interests were biologically determined (an insane statement if you ask me) then we would never see demographic shifts like this.
And I would argue that the teaching thing was because education was considered a "man's role" now there is no stereotype and women flock more to that profession. I used to play with cabbage patch dolls as a kid, my sister grew up and switched to barbie and my little pony. I had no interest. It wasn't because a show told me I shouldn't like it it's because I had zero interest. It's almost like you're making the argument that homosexuality is learned behavior and not ingrained biology... no, if you are gay you are gay and you know it. It's not because someone "groomed" you to be gay. Programming used to be a secretarial job, so yes the gender norms of the time would have leaned more heavily towards women. It's not necessarily because they wanted to code (it looked wayyy different back then). Now there are wonderful women coders, welders, plumbers, you name it. That's just not the biological norm. My wife hates math, hates that kind of stuff. but she has her masters in education because she loves nurturing and teaching. Are there guys like her, sure. I love teaching too. it's just not my passion.
I'm not saying career interests are biology driven, but that life interests are. Take the difference between male and female brains for example. Females have more empathy then males. Males have more of an ability to tune everything else out but a single thing while females cannot. Which if you believe in the hunter / gatherer theory makes sense. Males were out hunting and being hyper focused on the kill while the females were protecting the young and needed to pay attention to everything all at once.
Men and Women should 100% be equal, but they certainly are not the same, interests or otherwise.
We know that pink is considered a colour for girls. We know that historically it was a colour for boys. You can interpret that as no biological preference, only social.
My son still expressed that pink is for girls, not boys. We don't assign gender roles or colours to a gender. It comes from media, friends, daycare, school etc. Social pressure is not just what you do. Sure, there are differences in interests between genders. There are also variations between kids.
You have a set of 2 and are immediately writing off their differences as gender based, based on biology. If you had 2 girls or 2 boys with varying interests, would it also be biology?
There is no normal interests for either gender. Just more or less common. And much of that is societal pressures, not biological. Do you think stone age women cared about high heel shoes?
My son likes pink, no one has told him that's a girl color. It's not 100% all the time girls will like x and boys will like y. I guarentee if you isolated girls and boys from the rest of society from birth, the boys will be wrestling each other and the girls will be doing more nurturing type activities. Are there exceptions, yes.
I completely agree. However, its a spectrum on both sides, not a binary is the point. It just skews more for each gender. They are not exceptions, they just fall differently on the spectrum.
Nurturing like teaching, chef and doctor? Those are all traditional male roles.
Lots of behavior is learned. Lots is instinctive. Puppy's learn by play fighting. Cats learn by play hunting. Pupoys don't instinctively pee lifting a leg. They learn it from other dogs, yet we see it as innate behaviour. How much is nurturing and wrestling innate vs learned? Its impossible to isolate from society, so we can only speculate and study the degree to which it applies, with broad accuracy.
As it happens my other son attends the same daycare and pink is his favoyrite colour.
Except that isn’t really true, rates of young children interested in technical fields is pretty even. Moreover, up until the 1970s and 1980s, back when computers required far more technical knowledge to operate or repair, the field was almost exclusively comprised of women outside of managerial roles.
No small part of what changed was as computers become more important to industry and wages increased, for some reason home computers and especially new applications like gaming consoles were exclusively as toys for boys, and with women being required to near universally use male pseudonyms focus and popular perception shifted from the women who silently operate the IBM mainframe to the man writing code in the basement or startup by the 90s.
Practically gender roles have a lot more to do with how a field is perceived and how often kids are told ‘no, you don’t what to do that,’ or ‘that’s weird’, and especially how well they match with the image of the expected canadate in the head of the person hireing them. Even in your own comment you mention nursing, which is a far more technical role than say doctor or surgeon.
This is stupid and unneeded. Network prioritization is helpful and none of the doomer fastlane shit never materialized in some internet hellscape. The only heavy use I see it is at T-Mobile on the cheaper plans. And they are still a lot cheaper than other providers.
Pulse of Truth
Top
This magazine is not receiving updates (last activity 0 day(s) ago). Subscribe to start receiving updates.