d110af5ccf

They also often appear more likely to pose a threat to the public. How is a white collar criminal a threat to the public?

What you wrote there effectively amounts to:

> perhaps the illusion not actually being an illusion is what keeps it alive

In your scenario the CIA plays the equivalent role of a Chinese agency in the original one. Agencies within their own local government play the equivalent role of CIA.

> This is now impossible with background execution restraints

Signature spoofing is similarly "impossible" there's no rule saying this stuff can't be changed by distributions that care about it. You already have to install a custom OS to get rid of gapps to begin with so aside from the maintenance burden for changes that will never get upstreamed this is really a nonissue.

It's an orthographic projection. Ever play an isometric game?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthographic_projection#/media...

The weird thing is that the restart doesn't (usually?) seem to be necessary for it to function, only for you to receive the underlying security update. I learned this because there's a bug where if you have multiple profiles running simultaneously only the main one shows the restart screen.

When I found this out it really pissed me off so I tried to figure out where the restart screen showed up in the source code so I could patch it out. But I'm not familiar with the code base and left off after a bit of digging because I really can't justify the time spent.

In reality I end up holding back Firefox updates with my package manager until I'm ready to restart it. In the end I will thwart developers trying to dictate things to me. The software on my computer works for me, not the other way around. A lot of developers seem to be far too arrogant and forget this basic fact.

nope, that's blacklisted on all my machines

> Given that registrars give out that info, are you still concerned?

Yes, absolutely. It should not be legal for registrars to be doing that either IMO. I don't generally think that it should be legal to build businesses on the exchange of third party information without the direct consent of the third party in each specific instance.

In times past, perhaps a reasonable approach would have been to fax a photocopy of the alleged degree to the registrar or clearinghouse for pass/fail verification.

These days the individual ought to be able to initiate the registrar or clearinghouse to send a digitally signed document to the company.

This NovelAI guide is a good starting point. https://rentry.org/voldy If you're interested in training data then reading about what was used and where it was sourced from would be informative. As to torrent indexing services, well, I dunno if I'm supposed to link those here but they're easy enough to find and there are a lot of them out there.

> criminals will continue to build their own and ignore laws

More specifically, researchers and hobbyists would be made criminals in this hypothetical. Why would I stop playing with ML just because someone passed a useless and poorly thought out law?

> The model was trained on copyrighted material. There are enormous pressures to close and stop this.

> getting these tools in the future will only be from untrustworthy websites where half the download buttons give you an exe

These models can already be downloaded via well known (ie community reviewed) torrents. So can many terabytes of labeled training data. This particular horse is well out of the barn.

> That's generally where courts draw the line between helping out a friend, and providing a service.

The point is that it isn't the same service being provided and they are very upfront about that with the customer.

In that case you are selling the equivalent service (ie rewiring, which is regulated). In this case the service being sold is not the same (approximate versus legally certified maps).

> you think putting more items on their plate will help

Not GP, but I think it would stress the system to the breaking point and force us to fix it. I strongly suspect this would actually be a good thing. If a periodic process is painful for an organization in many cases doing it more frequently will result in the problems being fixed.

There is clearly significant disagreement in the US over the desirable scope of federal powers. Forcing that issue to a head would hopefully result in a more functional system in the end.

Well for starters, the example in the post at the top of this page would presumably not have happened if the paths in Explorer hadn't been obfuscated. So that's one example.

There are also strange constructions that don't actually correspond to a single folder, or at least there were the last time I used Windows which was quite a few years ago now. A place that looked like a photo directory in Explorer, but actually it was a view of multiple directories and I don't know where stuff ended up if you copied into it.

That is either an unreasonable or a flawed analogy, depending on exactly what you meant. It is almost never reasonable to use essentials like food when the discussion is about luxuries.

If by bread you meant specifically and only bread, then there is no issue. People will simply do without bread, perhaps buy pasta, you will be out a huge amount of money, things go about how you'd expect. In that case your analogy is flawed because you have not changed the market price. Instead you have lost yourself a lot of money.

If by bread you meant "the food supply in general" then it is an unreasonable analogy. The food supply likely requires legal protections that luxuries don't because lives are at stake. You are able to manipulate it only because people are physically unable to "do without".

I am not claiming that the situation is ideal. Only that it is incredibly naive to expect scalping not to exist and that selling below market price without a plan for how you expect that to work is a genuinely bad idea.

If you want to raffle your tickets off then by all means do that. But you will need a very different system from what we have now. And in order to prevent scalping you will probably need to collect government issued ID or biometric data which would need to be verified on entry to the venue. And the secondary market would have to be totally disallowed, with cancellations involving a refund and the ticket being re-raffled off.

Personally I think that anything short of that is incredibly naive and that you get what you deserve.

It depends. At least in the US your intent is important to most laws but not all laws. In other words, the judge or perhaps a jury will decide the answer to your question.

Yes but in context this is completely irrelevant. The context was originally the privacy implications of donating sperm. And those are definitely real.

Why do people put up with this? Just use linux. KDE is amazing these days.

It is absurd that a user profile, even one that's intended to be ephemeral, is _ever_ placed in temporary storage for exactly the reason of what happened here. The data should have been retained, at least for some preset amount of time (on the order of months) if not indefinitely.

Not really. May Windows programs actively obfuscate certain paths. On linux, ~ is simply shorthand for your home directory. Note that knowing what particular block device is backing a given path is not at all the same thing as being able to see the path in the first place.

Beyond that, getting a full path is trivial (realpath) and figuring out which block device backs it is also quite straightforward (findmnt).

Even then, you can never be certain that a service isn't providing you with a URL for something that is unique to you. For example, if HN wanted to go evil there's no reason it couldn't hand out a unique URL to every single visitor for every single page visited and invisibly map them to the appropriate resource on the backend. And they could even perform a redirect to a different unique URL each time one was loaded to reduce overlap between different parties (since most people wouldn't bother to counteract the redirect when resharing something).

And it's not even resource intensive to do something like this. It can all be done in a purely stateless manner by concatenating an internal ID with a counter and encrypting it to derive the URL that gets served to the user.

The moral of the story is, you should really download and share things yourself.

I am also still using it and haven't run into any issues so far. But it is unmaintained for quite some time now last I checked so I assume that eventually it will just stop working.

It's quite nice though. I have it set to disable any and all third party resources by default and from there it's generally fairly easy to permit the necessary things the first time I visit a site. And if it proves to be difficult I generally just decline to use that website at all.

Why would Apple need to allow it? It's simply a matter of a given program postprocessing the various audio streams appropriately prior to muxing them for output.

A single sperm cell can't. But you presumably have an awful lot of them in a single sample. So this seems irrelevant to the privacy concerns being discussed here.

The relevant term is "piercing the corporate veil" and it pretty much only happens if someone intentionally and knowingly engages in criminal acts.

Honestly I've never seen ticket arbitrage as a bad thing. These venues are selling below market price and then people get upset when the obvious thing happens. Essentially they are trying to operate using some sort of private club model where it's first come first served instead of supply and demand driven bidding. Yet they simultaneously want to sell these tickets on the open market. So what did they (and everyone else) expect would happen?

I see ticket scalping as a natural and good outcome. If you want a private club then start a private club but honestly you will still have to deal with members attempting to scalp since you aren't charging market price and our broader economy uses more or less free markets.

Well on the contrary, I'm saying that I find those particular terms immoral, that those terms should be disallowed by law, and that I think it is either morally neutral or possibly even virtuous to intentionally and knowingly violate them.

It's similar to civil disobedience I suppose, except in this case not a law but rather a civil "contract" inasmuch as an impenetrable ToS that a user is forced to click through can be viewed as a proper contract as opposed to a written notification from the vendor that they intend to terminate your service if they discover you doing any of the following things.

Fair enough, you had specified a freestanding seed so we were talking about slightly different things. You can of course go to extreme lengths to bootstrap a secure machine including manual input. Well actually that might be quite difficult in practice seeing as modern computers don't exactly accept punch cards. Presumably you had to prepare the digital media that provides the payload somehow. But regardless.

The much more common scenario would be bootstrapping something like Guix from within a running OS from a much smaller set of initial binaries than you otherwise might. And that host OS could in theory have been compromised. But I think that attack is a significantly higher bar than a compiler binary that compromises itself.