dev_null

@dev_null@lemmy.ml

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. For a complete list of posts, browse on the original instance.

dev_null ,

You mean last year? https://9to5mac.com/2024/06/09/security-bite-apple-refused-to-pay-bounty-to-kaspersky-for-uncovering-vulnerability-part-of-operation-triangulation/

dev_null ,

Not that it matters, but obviously if this ever becomes commercialised and actually available, it will no longer be grown in a lab, as labs are equipped for research, not mass production of products.

dev_null ,

Seems like a bold assertion, saying your food tastes better than something that doesn't exist yet, and so cannot be compared.

I mean, you are probably right, but you can't know how dinosaur meat or whatever genetically engineered nonexistent animal meat tastes like.

dev_null , (edited )

I get that, what I mean is that current attempts fail to even taste like animal meat, so it's hard to tell what that could actually taste like in the future. Now they pursue the taste of animal meat, but I imagine if they succeed they will go in other directions. Ultimately it's a tech to grow arbitrary cell structures from arbitrary cells, so nobody says it has to replicate any animal tissue. That's just unfortunately what people are familiar with.

dev_null ,

That's only useful though if someone looking for this function also happens to be looking for a tiling window manager. I assume most people needing this don't want a tiling window manager.

dev_null ,

Or, because Apple gets a free service that would cost an insane amount of money if they were to pay API fees or build their own data centers and models, and OpenAI gets free advertising by being included in millions of Apple devices. Seems pretty simple.

dev_null ,

The question doesn't imply communism is totalitarian, just like asking if you ever drove a car or bicycle doesn't imply cars are bicycles.

dev_null ,

When I found about the existence of Lemmy, I wanted to create an account, and found that Lemmy.ml is the official Lemmy instance ran by the Lemmy developers (who I knew nothing about). Seemed like the obvious, default, non-controversial choice.

Of course I later learned about... All this. I'm not interested in any political content so it took me a while.

So I guess I'd be a casualty, due to picking the biggest instance suggested to me by join-lemmy.org. How is someone new to Lemmy supposed to have the context here?

dev_null ,

That would result in a solid background.

It's just a deliberate artistic choice by the creator of the image.

dev_null ,

Guess I will keep my Windows 11 installer ISO around and won't download the updated one.

dev_null ,

If a species used radio communication, I don't think I'd be against people calling it telepathy.

dev_null ,

Why inconsistent? It's a transfer of information without physical interaction and without using any human senses.

I guess the difference in definition would be "human" senses. If you define it as using no human senses it fits, if you define it as not using any senses it doesn't, but that would be a useless definition, because nothing could possibly satisfy it.

dev_null ,

Britannica dictionary defines it with "without using the usual sensory channels"

Cambridge dictionary with "without using words or other physical signals"

Collins "without speech, writing, or any other normal signals"

Merriam-Webster uses "extrasensory", and they define "extrasensory" as "outside the ordinary senses"

All of it seems to match radio communication, and all require it to be between two persons or minds, so flowers and bees definitely don't qualify.

dev_null ,

And if they could use it to exchange thoughts and ideas with others, I'd call that telepathy, but they don't/

dev_null , (edited )

Hah, I'd expect "ordinary" and "normal" here to mean "ordinary / normal senses for a human", not for the hypothetical telepathy user. That wouldn't be a very useful usage of these words, so I doubt that's what was meant here. There is always a reference point for someone saying something is "normal" or "ordinary", and that reference point, for a human dictionary, would be a human with human senses.

When I say that a shark has an extraordinary set of teeth, I obviously mean from a human point of view, and not claiming that it's not normal from the shark's point of view. And when I, or a dictionary, say that telepathy doesn't use usual senses, similarly the meaning is that they would be unusual for a human, and personally I would find a species having a sense for radio waves, to be unusual.

dev_null , (edited )

Many animals have a vastly superior sense of smell, can see light outside our visible spectrum or hear sound outside our hearing range. But it would be silly to call all these things “telepathy” just because we humans don’t have these senses.

It would be silly to call these things telepathy because by themselves they don't facilitate a way to communicate thoughts between two minds. Even in the case of radio waves, a sense of radio waves wouldn't be telepathy by itself, unless there is also a mechanism of generating these radio waves, and unless these two mechanisms are used to communicate ideas between users, just like the sense of hearing is just one part of spoken communication.

If a species had an organ that could generate light outside the visible spectrum to accompany their superior eyes, and they were using it to talk, then yes "telepathic" would a sensible word to describe that. But that special organ, and the mental processing, would be the important parts, not the better eyes.

And when you’re talking about the biology of animals it seems quite self-centred to compare everything to us. We are just one very specific animal.

Well, I didn't write the definitions. :)

dev_null ,

At least where I live, you get billed separately for the incoming water and drainage. So if I'm not paying the utility, and get water to my property from my neighbor, then I'm not paying for the drainage I'm using when I flush that water down my drain.

Of course the situation is ridiculous, but this is how I'd imagine this being illegal, you are "stealing" the drainage service.

dev_null ,

They are billed separately, but there is no meter, it's just assumed by the amount of water you use.

dev_null ,

Obligatory comment about it being extremely hard to launch something at the Sun. Over 20x more fuel than any planet.

dev_null ,

I know nothing on the topic, but the points you raise don't seem relevant to me?

SMRs are not more economical than large reactors.

Yeah, economies of scale mean small things are generally less efficient than big things. This is a criticism of local power generation that applies just as well to wind turbines for example. Nothing to do with this idea really.

SMRs are not generally safer or more secure than large light-water reactors.

Why would anyone expect large power plants to be less safe than this? I'd expect the technology in both to be safe. Tell me if this is safe or not, not if it's "safer" than large power plants on some ambiguous scale. Rooftop solar is also less safe than commercial solar power plants just due to being located near someone's living space, but it's a useless relative comparison.

SMRs will not reduce the problem of what to do with radioactive waste.

That one is the only valid point to me.

SMRs cannot be counted on to provide reliable and resilient off-the-grid power for facilities, such as data centers, bitcoin mining, hydrogen or petrochemical production.

Why not? Seems like they would.

SMRs do not use fuel more efficiently than large reactors.

This is just a repeat of the first point.

Again, I know nothing on this and don't have an opinion either way. I'm pointing out this seems to be a criticism but only one of the 5 points seems to actually criticize this.

dev_null ,

Sure lets outsource trust in our communications to some shitty machine learning algorithm that is dumber than a fucking toddler.

And it really doesn't need to be smarter than that, to show a "banks will never asks you to transfer money to another account, this is likely a scam" dialog when the speaker claiming to be from your bank tells you to do so. This will save lots of vulnerable and older people from getting scammed. If you think that's a horrible idea then I'm interested in your reasoning. Over $10 billion per year is lost to scams, making a dent in that is amazing.

dev_null ,

It is truly a boring dystopia when we need AI to help protect ourselves against scammers. At least the overhyped buzzword found one application positive for humanity.

dev_null , (edited )

I wanted to understand, but it looks like you have no arguments and prefer to just concede your point, fair enough.

dev_null , (edited )

Why are you changing the topic? Let me simplify this.

You wrote:

Sure lets outsource trust in our communications to some shitty machine learning algorithm that is dumber than a fucking toddler.

I disagree this is bad, and my point is:
"A dumb machine learning algorithm is enough to be helpful for this purpose of scam warnings."

Of course you shouldn't trust Google in not stealing your data with their implementation, but you have already established that in your original comment, and I didn't bring this up at all because I already agree with you there. What I disagree with is that this is a bad idea. I think trying to protect people from scams is a great use of AI and would love an open source implementation of it that could be included in GrapheneOS for example.

dev_null ,

This is true, which is why preservation does not involve freezing, except for the bad attempts in the 70s the article talks about, which could never work. The bodies are vitrified, not frozen.

Which still doesn't mean it will work, the technology to revive them doesn't exist, but it doesn't have any freezing issue.

dev_null ,

What a stupid headline. Isn't law not keeping up with technology a common issue? And so creating legislation around something before it becomes commercially available a good thing?

Of course this law is stupid and shouldn't exist, but "creating a law for something that doesn't exist yet" is not a negative in itself, like the headline tries to imply.

dev_null ,

Please explain when creating a law for something that does not exist yet could be a good thing?

Sure, here are a few examples I can think of:

  • A new type of fuel for cars is being worked on. It works by a chemical reaction that isn't combustion. The law is updated to make sure it has to adhere to emission requirements, as currently this is only required for combustion products. Doing it before the new cars exist and are on the road is a good thing.
  • Some space exploration companies announce their asteroid mining plans. The law is updated to define how ownership and mining rights of asteroids work. This prevents legal issues before they happen.
  • A new battery technology is being worked on. The law is updated to regulate the disposal of them, as this is currently only defined for existing battery types.
  • Lab-grown meat is being worked on. The law is updated to make sure it's considered meat so that meat storage and refrigeration safety requirements apply to it, as otherwise stores could argue they don't.

This sounds like a perversion of how law should work. Opinions and ideology should not be dictating policy. It should be based on evidence and produce the desired results while limiting negative externalities.

Absolutely

dev_null , (edited )

Laws should be written generally to apply to many situations.

Yeah, so when they don't, it would be a good thing to update them, no? Especially when it looks like new things in the world are going to skirt around them?

For instance emission laws already cover new technology because they simply regulate what comes out of the tailpipe rather than how it is created.

If your hypothetical country has laws that define what comes out of the tailpipe, and my hypothetical new engine generates emissions in the form of solid dust that accumulates in a container, then how is preemptively updating the law so that the container cannot be emptied onto the road as you drive a bad thing, as opposed to creating that law after the fact, in response to people getting poisoned?

Creating niche specific laws is fraught with problems because when new laws are custom tailored to specific situations the chances of negative externalities begin to skyrocket.

Yes. That's why when niche specific laws don't cover new technology, they should be updated to be more general, so that they also apply to the new situation. For example if my hypothetical country has meat storage safety laws, that define meat as coming from a dead animal, then how is making them more general so that they also apply to lab-grown meat a bad thing?

The concept of writing preemptive laws is much like the concept of preemptive crime prevention.

Yes, what's wrong with it? I put a lock on my front door as preemptive crime prevention. Do you only put a lock on your front door after some opportunist already stole something?

It is definitely a situation of putting the cart before the horse. The kind of situation where special interests are pulling the strings to write a bad law. For instance the law in Florida banning artificial meat is an example of a preemptive and poorly devised one.
First the product has not even reached the market place. Second this laws bans it rather than just requiring proper labeling. It is not based on facts and likely is unnecessary and merely a partisan act to gather goodwill from entrenched industries.

You are bringing up an example of a bad law to suggest preemptive laws are bad. Tell me, would you agree with this law if it was made after artificial meat was already established in the market? If not, then it seems being preemptive is not the problem here, but all the other problems you yourself mentioned.

dev_null ,

I use Kubuntu, and it never pushed snaps to me, and disabling them took 5 mins.

dev_null ,

Well, they want to ban these words from appearing in laws, not from being used by anyone. So I guess it only deprives the government from free speech.

dev_null ,

How do you get banned from Reddit? I know mods can ban from their subreddits, but getting banned from the entire site?

dev_null ,

You can also just put whatever wrong login and password at the Microsoft account login. When it fails to log in the installer lets you continue with a local account. It's faster than the "proper" method with the command.

dev_null ,

Obviously your way works fine, but I think a browser extension could make it 100% automatic.

dev_null ,

They will try to brake, and if that's not enough then that's not enough. As interesting as such philosophical discussions are, cars won't be making "decisions on who to kill", that's ridiculous. They will just brake. Same as any other automated machinery, it just stops in case of an emergency.

dev_null ,

Have fun in Groundhog Day

dev_null ,

If it existed you'd never know. Unless you add an additional feature of preserving your characters memories across game loads. But then it's not a common game feature.

dev_null ,

The monkey paw here is that you are loading the world state and that includes you and your memories. You would never remember using this ability. Maybe you already have it!

dev_null ,

The comment was about never having to go to work on the morning. So yes you can leave, but then the you don't avoid work in the morning.

dev_null ,

Your license thingy broke since that thread where you explained your script. It doesn't spoiler anymore.

dev_null ,

https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/6349a426-1158-42bf-a4d1-4e2f4fc5ef99.png

Maybe it's just the Boost app I'm using

dev_null ,

I don't know how happy anti-virus kinda services are with having loads of very encrypted and obscured blocks of data

As happy as with any other file. Would be pretty silly if preloading a game on Steam pre-release would trigger AVs.

dev_null , (edited )

All your examples are obfuscating executables. None of which is happening here. Every software that connects to the Internet handles encrypted data and there is nothing suspicious about it.

If code isn't obfuscated you can do an analysis what kinda stuff closed source software does.

And what does that change in it being a "trust me bro" situation? Nobody does that. Are you reverse engineering all software you use, don't use any software that has an ability to update, and compile all software you use yourself? Because otherwise you are trusting the developers.

We are talking about a video game. The vast majority of games on PC are released through launchers like Steam which keep updating them. You'd have to spend months reverse engineering a game to know for sure it doesn't do anything you don't like, and disable updates. Nobody does that.

Have you ever encountered a joke edit of a movie while sailing the high seas?

I have been thinking about the Cerveza Crista edit of Star Wars: A New Hope that sporadically splices in beer ads and the Toy Story 3 edit alternate ending where they fall into the incinerator and it made me wonder if people have come across these kind of joke versions, in full, in the wild....

dev_null ,

It wasn't an edit of the movie. The beer company just paid the TV station to put the ad breaks at specific places of the movie, and for their ad to be the first ad of the ad break, allowing them to make it look like part of the movie. But it was still just an ad break, and other ads followed the beer ad.

dev_null ,

some new upstart closed Source program that is shiny just like how Discord took over from Slack

Guilded already exists. It's a Discord clone with more features, but no one uses it. I assume they are just waiting for Discord to fail one day.

dev_null ,

I didn't look into it much other than trying it out for 15 min. Good to know lol.

dev_null ,

I remember my school teachers telling us they don't have kids because they have enough of kids in their job, which makes perfect sense for me.

dev_null ,

You can pay a one time fee if $25 to get Microsoft to sign your app on the Microsoft store, or you can pay $400+ per year to buy your own certificate. So Microsoft Store is sadly the cheap way to release apps on Windows. (Without users getting scary warnings from Windows and AV about installing unsigned aoftware)

dev_null ,

The certs are sold by certificate authority companies, and Microsoft doesn't get a share of that, though I'm not sure.

Yeah, software being signed says nothing about it not being malicious or insecure, but it does prove the author is what it says, and if it is malicious then the responsible party is clearly visible.

For non-commercial hobby/open-source software the certificate price is prohibitive, so the only 2 options are Microsoft Store or accepting that users will see the scary warnings, and of course complain to the developer about it.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •