That's why I've mentioned being a US citizen, but don't worry the same kind of moral dilemmas applies to most other fiat currencies/citizenships.
977 karma · joined August 22, 2022
You could put it in USD and you'd be financing the bombings of schoolgirls in Iran in a pointless and no-end-in-sight war... not saying either is better, but one of them is optional for US citizens, while the other isn't. And the optional one also lets you avoid third-party custodians like Binance.
Feels like you should be able to prompt the kind of exploits you want to prevent and the model should be able to make the system secured against them, no?
These are clearly rhetorical questions, but think of the metaphysical implication of your contestation. Ex nihilo nihil fit.
What if that initial prompt never asked for this hardware to be developed, and it was just one piece of the puzzle to answer to that prompt? That it took a chain of thousands of agents to prompt each others to come up with that?
You'll have to do better than hide behind the term "responsible" to force people to stop sharing knowledge about something they have bought and own.
> That's what responsible disclosure is for.
Good one, the maximum bounty for PlayStation is $50k for critical ones. But on average they only pay $10k for such "bugs"... as a reminder in 2025 the Sony's PlayStation (Game & Network Services) segment generated approximately $30,000,000,000. Talk about a "fig leaf".
What people decide to do with them is on them, and fixing the exploits would be on the manufacturer if they care about this so-called "piracy".
I've experienced the same limits building small tools for myself and friends that I wanted to contain in a single HTML file without external dependencies... but I understand why the same project without these restrictions could easily become malware, and ones that could be easily propagated.
The time scale for optical fibers' profitability is much longer than copper. The media itself is passive, cheap to maintain, and easy to upgrade by lighting more fibers or moving to newer PON standards. That's why operators often overbuild the fiber count per home on purpose, something they would rarely do with copper (the time scale and upgradability being more limited by the intrinsic properties of the medium).
Fibering up a mountain becomes more rational once you view it as a 40+ year asset with very low upgrade cost (for the medium itself, not the equipment connected to it). Not a 10-year ROI project like copper often was. And even more rational when you can get subsidies by governments which are usually eager to develop the economical activity in regions that otherwise would have little to no opportunity to grow significantly.
The same goes with not addressing all the other points made and sourced in my messages above.
The fact is that there are enough blatant and contextualized statements in that list and the rest of the points I've made. They show his antisemitism.
Piker is openly supporting Hezbollah and Hamas "10-toes down", again irrefutalbly antisemitic terrorist organizations.
Most recently he had a slew of Democrat figures at the national level either denouncing him or distancing themselves, again, for his antisemitic comments (Hakeem Jeffries, Corey Booker, Josh Gottheimer, Hillary Scholten, Jeremy Moss, Abdul El-Sayed and so on).
This happened because Hasan Piker rambled about Jews, and specifically American Jews being responsible for the antisemitism they endure and that they shouldn't be surprised if someone "takes action" against them if they continue to want a state for Jews:
> And if Jews in America keep putting this idea out there that they are singularly invested in Israel, eventually someone's going to come around and take action, not against the state of Israel, mind you, but against American Jews.
> [...]
> You're running around basically tying your entire identity to a country that inevitably will be seen as, basically, Jewish ISIS... You're making antisemitism worse.
But keep running around saying "bullshit" if you want, it won't change facts.
Skimming them and picking one that doesn't fully meet your criteria, then call it a "hate site" and then use vagueries like:
> He must've really pissed someone off to get his own hate site. I think we all know who he pissed off.
Tells me you have no interest in engaging in this in good faith.
Also nobody cares if a website quoting someone being hateful would be illegal outside of the USA. Piker is an American citizen, spewing hateful antisemitism on an American platform... but nice attempt at a red herring.
Also plenty of groups fighting against racism and antisemitism have come out against him (ADL, AJC), it's easy to Google.
That House resolution is just the latest good indication that it's not just some isolated incidents.
Piker's only answers are that he's taken "out of context" or that he's "joking", there's literally no context that make his public statements better or less antisemitic though, if you have any I'm interested. He also publicly voice his support to groups that are openly antisemitic (Hamas and Hezbollah) and recognized as FTOs (Foreign Terrorist Organization) by the US government.
Now, it's his First Amendment right to be this way but Twitch/Amazon share a responsibility when they platform this content, and even more when they apply moderation selectively, in my opinion that should forfeit their Section 230 protection. They are deliberately shaping the discourse on their platform by permanently banning other streamers with opposing views and never taking similar actions against Piker.
"Fun" fact, Twitch even had to carve out their own rules because Hasan Piker couldn't stop himself from calling Jews in general or some groups of Jews "zionist pig-dogs" and "inbred": https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/twitch-changes-hateful-content-...
EDIT: Regarding the bills of attainder, it likely doesn't apply here because they aren't trying to punish these two antisemites specifically, they just use them as examples of the proliferation of antisemitic content on platforms like Twitch and want Congress to condemn this practice and encourage platforms to address the issue.
He still streams on Twitch, he got a temporary week "long" ban and then came back claiming it was a virus or an accident while also claiming he has a porn addiction problem... but don't worry he's very "sorry" (to have been caught).
The state of this Amazon-owned streaming platform is wild... and that's without even looking at the rampant antisemitism (their second top political streamer, Hasan Piker, currently has a bipartisan US House resolution (H.Res.1239) in progress calling him and Candace Owens out for their antisemitism), repeated call for violence (their top political streamer, Asmongold, was recently banned for a few days for calling for the murder of immigrant's children by ICE) and the repeated reckless/distracted car and even truck driving streams with some even leading to accidents (luckily enough without any deadly one... yet).
All these are against Twitch rules, but the staff and even the CEO (who cosplays as a streamer) selectively apply the rules and unban the streamers who are under contract with Twitch or are well connected with the staff.
I have no idea why Amazon or Twitch shareholders have not cleaned house already (e.g. ousting the CEO and the people in charge of the moderation), especially considering the fact that even with all these transgressions, Twitch isn't profitable after years of activity.
They are waiting for someone to actually die I think, with clear links to Twitch... if that ever happens there are plenty of evidence that Twitch and Amazon know what is going on and barely does anything about it.
I don't think many people know about it, it's made by Good Lock Labs which is basically a group of Samsung devs making advanced customization apps: https://galaxystore.samsung.com/detail/com.samsung.android.s...
You access the features from the OS volume control once installed, there's a "..." button.
Always wondered if that also works on non-Samsung phones, but it's quite useful to forever mute an app.
Judges are elected/nominated depending the jurisdiction and in this case the decison of a District judge (nominated by George W Bush, through indirect democracy) stands: that proposition is unconstitutional, and the people who tried to appeal that decision in upper courts had no standing to do it (they suffered no personal and concrete injury from this decison).
But to be fair/realistic, as an individual, I've never worried about their licenses (for myself, my friends, and family). The only time I did was when installing their software in professional/commercial contexts, that's where they do most of their enforcement as far as I know... and only when the scale is egregious.
Then you'd ask to change lawyer. If they can apply a standard practice of care and do basic checks like matching a username and time of use because they don't "believe" you when you say these are not you messages, they are not doing their job as a lawyer.
I'd go as far as saying such basic checks not being done amount to negligence/malpractice, they might have a civil case against that lawyer.
> with the use or assistance
Don't ask me how they would know you've used a LLM to "assist" you to find the exploit... I don't even know how they would definitely know if you used a LLM for the code to fix it either.
I'm not defending China at all, just noticing a detestable trend.
EU competition law is not framed around valuing Europeans more than others, it is framed around protecting competition and market functioning inside the EU.
No need to moralize it and pretend anyone is using this "value" European humans more than other humans.
That's the part I've quoted, because that's the questionable part. You just have no argument to support this idea.
So good day to you too, please, next time take a couple minutes to read the OP to see that your suggestion/idea of how things could work is exactly the opposite of reality, by design, by (among others) the two companies you suggest are acting differently and have both had to settle class-action lawsuits for the same deliberate and anti-consumer behavior.
I didn't think I would need to quote more of your message, its essence is that you think these kinds of licenses *can be* "as good as buying" when they demonstrably have never been close to it... and it's by design.
> If these mega companies stick around and continue to offer access to the content, then it is as good as buying it (arguably better if you don't have to store it and can download onto many devices over decades)
But the really don't, they regularly cut access to content they pretend to have "sold" to you with a "buy" button. They have redefined the words "buy" and "purchase" to match an old model of sales where you actually had an irrevocable access to the content. All this law says is that it should be made clear to the end user.
Currently companies hide this to customers in pages-long EULAs and behind misleading "Buy" buttons. It shouldn't be so hard to be honest about their business model... unless maybe they think people would reconsider "buying" all these things if they knew they can be taken away from them so easily, without refunds, often without even warning them.
> or loses access to the relevant rights.
In most cases the companies don't "lose" anything, they decide that continuing to pay the copyright holders for this content is not profitable for them anymore (or fail to negotiate it within their acceptable margins), so they stop paying, and remove the content from their catalog. Without any regard, consultation, or compensation for the customers who paid to access it.
> If you can move the content from a PS5 to a PS6 in 5 years, then arguably it's fine to say you "bought" it. But if they're wiping the content from your local devices, then you've definitely not bought the thing.
Many of these services stream the content to you on-demand and don't even allow local copies... or if they do, they gate the local copy behind online renewable keys limited in time. Sony does this by forcing you to connect your console every few days if you want to be able to continue to play "offline".
And to be honest Sony's case is interesting but not very significant, both Amazon and Apple have been caught removing content (removed books from Kindle, removed songs/albums from iTunes, if my memory serves me well, you can easily google the cases), they got class action lawsuits against them and both settled. More than once. They settle because they know their customers expectation of "buying" is not the one their EULAs guarantees, and they really don't want courts to rule on these EULAs or whether "Buy" is a misleading term. That's why lawmakers have to do it. It's really not a matter up for discussion that these companies will remove content sooner or later, the OP demonstrates so, the previous settled cases too... so unless you provide a framework in which these companies can offer an access that is actually as good as actually buying a physical media, it's just wishful thinking to believe they "can" do it, there is literally no incentive for them to do it and they've designed the current business model this way on purpose, removing all control from their customers.
I keep only sending major works I've created or contributed to, to the potential employers I have carefully selected, privately, by law (in my jurisdiction) they are not allowed to publish/use it.
I still contribute to open-source but clearly these references tend to have less and less value for job hunting in my experience, unless you own a very, very popular repo.
My advice is to publish selectively and only where the expected returns beat the downsides. The data this person wants from potential hires are not included in this. I would safely avoid their company if these are the kind of fire hoops he wants me to jump through.
Is there something in Apple or Amazon terms which say they can't under any circumstances deprive you of accessing the content you have bought with their "Buy" buttons? I don't see why you are trying to assign a difference between them and Sony here?
We have words like leases, licenses, or renting for a reason and they are not new.
The companies which shifted their business model to renting in the digital age have perpetuated the "buy" buttons to make their customers think the transaction was the same as when they purchased a physical media... but clearly, and it's by far not the first case, these companies will deprive their customers of their "purchase" for many reasons that shouldn't be any concern for someone who actually "bought" something... like the companies suddenly deciding to stop paying for the rights of the thing that they alledgly "sold" to you.
So just as clearly, theses were not actual purchases but just licenses, non-transferable, allegedly "perpetual" but unilaterally revocable at any time with no refund.
I really don't see why you seem to think there is anything hazy about this, or hard to delineate. This law seems to cover the cases in which these companies abuse the language in question, Amazon and Apple are not "selling" you anything digital, you acquire a pretty limited license on all of these services.