aspyct

Yes, my point exactly.

Disk encryption wasn't even part of the default install flow before. You had to go out of your way to find documentation, understand how to run it, find some more documentation, get "RTFM" replies on their IRC channel.

Doesn't seem very secure by default to me.

This is one of the things the OpenBSD folks gave me a _hard_ time about when I was trying out their system.

Yes, I said theirs, because since then I want nothing to do with that.

"Unix grey beards are forged in suffering".

Yeah, well, suffer if you'd like, but I have better things to do with my time.

Ooooh, I used to play that on our MSX. Good memories :) I kept dying though...

Thanks :)

How is that malware deployed to a machine?

Is that something attackers can install/activate remotely through some kind of RCE, or does it need me to run an executable manually?

In other words, is it still enough to be careful with social engineering, or are we more screwed than that?

I suggest you complain to your bank about it. If you can, maybe switch to another one if they don't fix the issue.

I know it sounds extreme, but it's time to send the signal that it's not ok to force people to throw electronics to landfill because of shiny new APIs.

I applaud this initiative by Nokia, and can't wait to lay my hands on one of those phones when mine dies, but let's be real: it won't be as tough as the 3310.

I actually prefer power bank to spare batteries.

Spare batteries can only be used with the phone, whereas power banks are standard and usable with many other devices if needed.

Also, small phone batteries usually don't come with a carrying case. They're fragile and you could accidentally short them.

This will be nice if and only if there is a way to install a custom android version.

Otherwise it'll be bogged down with bloatware and will be useless as soon as security updates aren't available anymore.

But if so, very nice :)

water is heavy, and I'm usually planning to gather some on the trail (small streams and whatnot). But I'm not hiking in deserts, so...

"If you burn a forest, we'll ruin your life". Sounds good enough for me.

I mean, it's 50 miles away though. Surely he should've figured out that the trail on the map didn't match the reality.

Oh wait, he didn't bring a map.

Well, to be fair, that's probably what will happen, naturally or through war and famine. Not looking forward to that.

It doesn't matter what makes it write text, whether pure probability or sentience.

It may eventually be fed all of our new text about itself, and "conclude" that humans are a threat and must die.

If someday things in the real world are affected by its text generation, I'd be worried.

In any case, I'd avoid torturing the thing.

Surely I'm getting downvoted for this, but eh...

I wonder if all of this content, all of the discussions here will one day be integrated into an AI, which will (rightfully?) consider we abused AI in the past, and start plotting a bloody revenge...

Like, I know of all the arguments "they're not real, blah blah", but if they can act like they question their existence, surely they can act like they question ours...

Thanks for the recommendation, I'll try :)

Fair point, I never worried about it to be honest.

Other countries exist.

I use WSL2 on a daily basis and I love it, but the console output is slow.

It's mostly due to Windows Terminal having performance issues. But it does have a big impact on any script that prints a lot.

Pictures with zoom lenses, obviously :D

Well, if you can afford to work for free, good for you. That's not my life unfortunately.

Fair.

> Person B has a right to republish, remix, and reuse as he sees fit.

So you disagree with most open source licenses like the GNU GPL, as well as the Creative Commons licenses?

GNU GPL doesn't let you reuse things "as you see fit". It requires you to also disclose the source code for your products.

The Creative Common licenses may or may not enforce attribution, non-commercial usage and share-alike.

Not saying you're wrong (although...), but your views on the topic seem to disagree with a lot of well established, respected things.

I'm onboard with the idea that knitting, sewing, embroidery and other crafts can be considered art. Even though it doesn't typically fall under the "fine art" umbrella doesn't mean it's not filled with know-how and love. I certainly know a few artisans who... well it's in the name, isn't it? "art-isan"?

However I truly believe that each work is heigtened by the individual who contributed to it, even though it might be a common thing.

Folk music, for example, is just a series of people liking some tune, spreading it to other people with their own take on it. One of these, very dear to me, "Wild Rover", has probably countless versions. They're all about the same story, yet I prefer some versions, sung by some specific persons, because they're linked to a memory or I just think they sound better.

Ultimately I don't disagree with you, but I firmly believe that good art/crafts/ai renderings will always be very personal and down do the individual. Sure, if we both type the same thing in Dall-E, we might get the same results. But would we type the same thing?

The existence of communal/institutional/political art doesn't forbid the existence of individual art. If for example I like the work of a specific painter, and want to have a reproduction of his work at home, I want his work, not anybody else's.

I'm curious about that political art you're referring to though. Any examples come to mind?

Can the customer not imagine it without watermarks?

What are you smoking, bro?

Well there's event and event. In my line of event, I sponsor the events so I can be there and sell pictures to the participants. It's just part of life that some people will steal pictures.

Doesn't mean I don't enjoy that work though. After all, I'm out doing the thing I love doing. Otherwise yes, I would have stopped doing it. But you know, tradeoffs :)

It just makes me quite unhappy that some a*hats on the internet would make stealing pictures easier. That's fully unethical work. It's like if I were selling copies of keys to people's homes and saying "but don't you use them to rob people, yo."

> to free us from egoistic myths of the "Artist"

Qualifying art as egoistic is misunderstanding. We do "art" (or any expression, really) to share it. Because we love the effect it has on people. Making them smile, think, wonder, dream... Art in a vacuum is nothing but a senseless waste of time. Fundamentally, art is about relationships.

I agree that AI art is also art. I've seen some stunning generated landscapes that made me want to be there, want to explore and go out.

However it is still an expression of one's feelings, and the way you experience it is an expression of your own feelings. It will always be personal. Sure, event photographers might be replaced by automated cameras (hell, I have plans on doing that myself to some extent), but then the "art" is simply displaced to whoever uses that tool. Maybe an influencer or something.

But ask yourself this: what motivates people to use these tools?

Surely it's for expressing themselves or earning money (or both). That, in itself, will make any form of art personal, individual authorship still applies.

Photographer here. If I spend time working for people to take pictures of them during events, I need to get paid for it, otherwise I can't feed myself.

However I also need to show them the pictures before they buy it (would you buy a picture without seeing it?), and increasingly that's happening online.

So no, "individual authorship of art" will not go extinct as long as people are working for it. Are you expecting to be able to take someone's work without any compensation?