HN user
How so? Any competent intelligence service will not just depend on the goodwill of a corporation to secure access to assets and intelligence.
If they cooperate that's good and convenient, but that does not mean the intelligence service will not set in place contingencies for if the other side suddenly decides not to play ball anymore.
I consider that plausible with Google due to Google's funding history [0], but Apple is afaik way less "influenced" and the way this pwn was pulled off could also have been done by compromising Apple's hardware supply chain and not Apple itself.
Particularly considering how in the past Apple has been very willing to be on the receiving end of negative headlines for not giving US agencies decrypted access to iCloud accounts of terrorist suspects, with Google I don't remember it ever having been the target of such controversy, meaning they willingly oblige with all incoming requests.
[0] https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-ci...
The centralization of the web through a for profit oligopoly is not the same as having a central respiratory of data by a non-profit.
One of those destroyed net neutrality and most online free speech, the other is a charity trying to be the last memorial of it.
The only way you're getting anyone to host things from the past is for there to be an incentive. The only incentive possible is a centralized repository.
What about the incentive of keeping a somewhat thrustworthy and complete digital historical record? Is that worth nothing outside of its sheer monetization potential?
Try doing that outside of the FAANG dominance and you have some work cut out for you because they've spent the last decades either buying up any prospective "competition" or straight up marginalizing it into irrelevance.
Which is, to state it again, the antithesis to what the web was supposed to be, it started as a scientific venture [0], it inspired a whole new way of looking at the world and our minds in it [1].
Profit incentives came only later, they were not inherint to this space, they invaded it and took it over.
Yes, I'm romanitizing a lot of idealism here, but I think it's important to remember that era and mindset of the early web.
It's important to remind people that the current web was neither the goal nor has it still much to do with the web of the old, a place of counter-culture, not of corporate mainstream pushing overwhelming government messages while keeping more tabs on you than even the Stasi could ever dream about.
This ignores that such a breaking up of the US would very likely be based on similar dynamics as "balkanizations" that see smaller groups put their own identidy above that of the bigger group.
Sentiments that will be reinforced during a civil war when these groups keep trading violence and atrocities with each other, that creates a lot of bad blood and tends to make people identify in ways that differentiate them from "the enemy".
Not even Americans are immune to that, it's an issue latent to this day whenever state rights vs federal government comes up.
There is a lot to worry about, the modern web has become incredible bad at retention but really good at memory-holing escpecially of old content.
So much more would already be lost without the Wayback Machine.
It's what happens when a place that was supposed to be free and decentralized has become the exact opposite [0]
[0] https://staltz.com/the-web-began-dying-in-2014-heres-how.htm...
Funny how the "top" on that seems to be a rather subjective interpretation, could have sworn China was made out as top, and two centuries ago it was apparently the US; https://apnews.com/general-news-b40414d22f2248428ce11ff36b88...
You can talk to people with smart earbuds, but you have no clue if those smart earbuds are recording what you say or not.
The person wearing them could be on a call, and the caller on the other side would hear what you say.
The person wearing them could be streaming to twitch, and everybody watching that stream would hear what you say.
All while you assume that you are having a private conversation with earbud person.
For motorbikes there are already options to get a HUD in the helmet, i.e. a CrossHelmet or Argon Transform.
This is not an endorsement of these products, I have no idea if they are actually any good.
There is a SFW filter?
I just let it generate a random woman with no prompt, and it gave me a pretty good result, except there is a mask on the face and literally bloody nude boobs; https://generated.photos/human-generator/64d67874568faa0007a...
edit; I just realized it put in a default prompt
As far as I remember CSGO did way better than CS:Source, which never really caught on until the point where it became a bit of a "retro" curiosity.
I'd argue the original mod/1.6 had a much bigger impact on gaming than CSGO.
The impact of Steam, as the first digital distribution platform for video games, is probably magnitudes bigger again.
Valve was so far ahead of the competition, and still remains there to this day.
Which is kind of a miracle, in some alternate timeline we could have ended with EA as the patron of PC gaming.
Then go right ahead and do that, there will be a myriad of official government instutions, from all over the world, that would be very interested in your findings.
Or MS could simply share the keys with those government institutions there have been literally asking for it, to see wether Windows is actually sending home privacy relevant data.
But the matter of fact is it's a very real issue and still on-going problem.
Just because investing a lot of effort could shed some further light on it does not really change anything about that or the non-compliant behavior MS engages in.
Security only being as good as the effort lobbed at it to break it, is not really a novel or useful insight in this scenario.
That's the last ~10 years of web developement in a nutshell, instead we have darkpatterns as normalized "industry standard".
I don't doubt that Windows collects and transmits telemetry data (hell, text editors do that nowadays), but if an analysis of that exists, it is not in this article.
Such an analysis does not exist because that traffic is encrypted. Which is also the reason why using Windows 10/11 is not fully compliant with EU privacy laws in places like Germany, as there is no telling what Windows is actually phoning home.
Officially Windows 10/11 can be used but only after jumping through a lot of hoops that involve turning off the telemtry and phoning home, but even then only with an "acceptable residual risk" [0]
The only reason this isn't a bigger topic is because there is no realistic alternative; Everything is tailored to MS, and MS spends absurd amounts of money and effort to prevent anything from changing that.
So the majority just goes with the "easiest" and most convenient solution, even when it might actullay be an "illegal" solution that enables a ton of industrial espionage.
[0] https://www.heise.de/news/Datenschutzkonferenz-Hohe-Huerden-...
There is a pretty decent chance some VPN providers are actually intelligence service, or other bad actor, honey pots.
It's part of VPN that most users these days don't even understand, as VPN providers are heavily advertised on the claim of improving privacy.
When in reality the VPN only shifts the party you have to trust from one to another, but the problem still remains the same.
Nope! That would require the server operator to participate
Or it would require compromising the server [0]
[0] https://www.csoonline.com/article/3137065/shadow-brokers-lea...
I don't share this opinion personally, it would be only two times worse, it could be considered but at 50 to 100 times worse than non fossil tech, it's just not worth investing.
This ain't about investments for the long term, it's about having a transition fuel into fully renewable, and that is needed for any realistic approach to the problem.
As the fossil fuel reliance doesn't only extend to the energy sector, but also manufacturing industries, where hydrocarbons, as a resource, are responsible for pretty much everything that defines modern life. [0]
Additionally to these environmental problems, it's one of most expensive infrastructure-wise
The infrastructure is expensive, but it's also the only existing energy infrastructure which can realistically be retooled for renewable replacement through green hydrogen.
Now you can point out how hydrogen has also expensive infrastructure and even worse storage problems, which is true. But as of right now, green hydrogen is the only plausible way to wean ourselves off our fossil fuel dependence as a manufacturing resource [1].
It's a dimension to this way too few people have on their radar, as most of the public debate is solely centered on electricity generation from fossil fuels, when that's actually the easiest problem to fix with renewables.
But the dependencies on fossil fuels as manufacturing resource, fixing those is a much bigger and involved task than making electricity grids green and renewable.
[0] https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/11/f68/Products...
[1] https://www.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/zv/de/ueber-fraunhofer...
Afaik on an international level there's been a somewhat universal consent that natural gas is the "transition fossil fuel of choice" [0], due to being the fossil fuel with the lowest emissions.
It also has the added bonus that gas infrastructure can realistically be retooled for green hydrogen, and related products.
[0] https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-gas-in-todays-energy...
There were plenty of reactions, among them an attempt to get an international, and independent investigation going through the UN [0]
ChatGPT currently has some issues [0]
If you actually care to inform, then you can add a source to give the information some third party background and more details.
Expecting others to put in the work to authenticate your claims, by sending them on wild goose chases on Google that might or might nor yield the same results you got, is a recipe for getting overwhelming amounts of disinformation.
As it's way easier to casually claim an unsourced falsehood, than it is to research a topic and debunk that falsehood with credible sources.
A bad-faith request for a source is just an attempt to waste the other person’s time.
Why not add a source to begin with, so others don't have to "waste" their time asking for one/looking one up?
With anything that's citing numbers, or statements by some official person or institution, that's imho a no-brainer.
Particularly as a Google search can yield wildly different results based on location, search history, and wording of the search request. So assuming everybody else can "Just Google it", is often not very useful.
There’s also the risk that the request for a source just devolves into an argument about the quality of the source, which basically torpedos the discussion.
You call it a risk, I call it an opportunity to fact-check if the original claim is actually true, or just one of the many headlines that take liberties for sensationalism.
It's also an opportunity to establish a "base truth" that people can agree on as a premise, to start a discussion from.
That's not a given when people from often vastly different educational, socio-economic, cultural and language backgrounds interact with each other, as it constantly happens online.
I see nothing wrong with an "obsession" with sources.
The www was very much built on sharing http links as a form of citation, no reason not to make use of such an fundamental and established function.
Imho the opposite has become a much worse issue; People casually claiming the most extraordinary things, far outside the realm of opinions, with not even an attempt to source it.
If Twitter is the frame of reference being used, then Reddit wins out by virtue of layout and content allowances.
Trying to cram context and nuance, about topics that can be very big and complicated, into 280 character text bites is not the easiest task.
While the character limit for a Reddit comment is 10k.
How often do you casually dispense medical advice to strangers?
Semi-regularly, as I work in palliative healthcare.
I'm just not sure why that would be relevant to "medical advice" like "If you experience too intense sympthoms, try lowering the dose" and explaining the differences between instant and prolonged-release drugs?
Some might consider that common sense, which shouldn't need to be pointed out.
But life is hectic and complicated, leading to a lot of overthinking, sometimes we just need a reminder of the simpler and straight forward solutions.
I wonder if these differences in effect might have to do with the emergence, and wider adoption, of abuse-deterrent formulations of drugs?
Case in point; https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/vallons-abuse-resistant-...
The brand one slow releases very evenly while the generic just slams me with the calm, focused joy followed by a significant emotional low for hours.
Prolonged-release of an orally drug taken in pill form is a "special feature", it's the difference between regular Adderall and Adderall XR.
There are patented techniques involved to make it work like that, generica manufacturers probably don't have access to those/leave it out to save manufacturing costs.
You can try taking the generica in smaller dosages, to compensate for their lack of prolonged-release, as the symptoms you describe sound like you are overdosing by taking too much in too short of a time.
Concerta doesn't need such manual dosage management, as it also has prolonged-release just like Adderall XR.
Perhaps they sampled in the wrong time frame. The full article might have more info, but the linked one doesn't.
The data was collected over nearly 27 years, the link to the full open access paper is in the references; https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fs42003-022-04122-0
Even more impressive is the fact how it can do all these things for around the same price as other smartphones, while being way more rugged.
Definitely gonna keep those CAT phones in mind for the next time I need a new one.
Tho I do remember a whole lot of "We can reconfigure the tricoder to do the thing"