fruitworks

https://pine64.com/product/pinebuds-pro-open-firmware-capabl...

this is the question of the hour. Imagine using this LLM proxy to license-strip major parts of leaked Windows source code to produce code for WINE.

On top of all of this, there are the attempts at binary decompilation using LLMs and other new tools that have been discussed on this site recently.

Why are all of these attempts at controlling the web coinciding at the same time now? I don't think it is a coincidence that this is happening at the same time that the younger generation wakes up to our greatest ally.

I'm not sure it would progress faster for this project

compared to what other projects?

Because these are the major types of problems that pmOS solves?

I don't think you understand what the job entails, if you think these are the best tools

just tell em to wear their disintegration-proof vest

that doesnt seem like super great returns

now?

I mean it's easy to get away with. Murder, presumably, is not

the autoscroll is killing me. I can't really read the "what happened" blurb at the end. I guess my phone is too narrow

I can do it pretty easily. The restriction in both cases is so easily overcome it is ridiculous to build your buisness model around it and disrespectful to the customer's intellect.

You can run an entire apartment block off of a single sim card/phone line. The (technical) problem is that you are purchasing an insufficient amount of bandwidth. It goes without saying that a limited bandwidth integrated over a finite service period comes out to a limited amount of data, so the term is misleading.

If google has no obligation to provide the service tier, then they should stop providing it instead of providing it under false terms.

This is like if everyone in a city decided to take baths instead of showers, so the municpal water supply decided to ban baths instead of properly segmenting their service based on usage.

Service providers don't have the right to discriminate what their service is used for.

I imagine you could have some contract that interacts with ecash, based on revelation of a blind signature. Similar to a HTLC.

I have actually written up some ideas for a system based on something like this that I called "chaumian coupons", but I would have to go through my notes to find it.

The difference is that in micropayments the debt is practicially nothing, a fraction of a cent. So there's basicially no risk. Pre-pay, post-pay, doesn't really matter.

With minipayments, you could still lose a dollar or something. It's like a vending machine. If I put in a dollar and don't get a cookie, I will be pissed. You can run a buisness of setting up fraudulent vending machines that scam customers on the first purchase and dont put out cookies.

I don't really care if I put a tenth of a cent in and don't get my crumb out. I just won't buy the rest of the cookie. The margin on selling me the whole cookie is greater than scamming me out of a fraction of a cent. So it's not feasible to scam.

So the distinction matters. It's a difference in kind because in one model there is enough risk to sustain a buisness model off of scamming, which requires all this extra infrastructure for fraud prevention.

The benefit of micropayments is you don't need all this overhead for for fraud. Anyone can set up a vending machine pretty much anywhere and sell to anyone else.

The throughput is arbitrarialy limited by bitcoin's current block size, which hasn't been increased since satoshi's era.

Most cryptocurrencies have an adaptive block-size mechanism which allows the blocks to grow to a reasonable size which could facilitate such an onboarding of users. So it isn't a technical problem, it is just a question of bitcoin's current leadership, which is controlled by companies like blockstream.

have you heard the good news about our lord and savior chaumian cash?

Or you could cut out the middleman and use a micropayment system like GNU Taler to pay the websites directly.

That way you dont have to hope and pray that the middleman doesn't decide to track you censor, and charge increasing fees, which current middlemen like patreon currently do.

the dataset is poisoned with a definition you disagree with

there are multiple credit card companies, but only 3 big payment systems: Europay, Mastercard, Visa. that is the protocol: a triopoly that controls everything and then a handful of companies that wrap the same product and can't fundamentally change it.

Not unlike generic laptops that are made by OEMs in taiwan and resold by dell, and whatever small company.

"Solving" the problem of signing up clients and vendors at the same time is a different problem for the companies. They benefit from the vendor lock-in. The "solution" is to establish a monopoly

the middlemen aren't intercompatible. it's like saying anyone can make paypal.

If you try to start your own paypal, no vendors will sign up because you have no clients. No clients will sign up because you have no vendors.

My university forced everyone to use duo mobile for years, with no other option for OTP. That's what this reminds me of. Sure, there is a sense in which the university can choose to use a different 2fa service, but there is nothing forcing them and the consequences are on the user side.

I have it on good authority that they really truly delete it this time, super duper pinky promise

I just use Mauth, its on fdroid. Pretty much everything is that common OTP standard. Same with OTPclient on gnu/linux

My only bad experience is duo mobile, but I expect it is equally bad on iOS

Because LLMs are deterministic, they could provide the model files, prompt, and seed used.

What technique did you use for the timelock encryption?

Okay so basicially apple users are dumb as rocks which is why iOS is so profitable in the first place, and they are corraled into installing apps and making in-app purchases.

Yes. You owe Apple and Patreon as much ad they want to charge, because you are a mental slave

Who is someone?

How does your custom AI-built browser challenge the current browser triopoly?

The LLMs are trained on the code of existing browsers. This is essentially a massive process of turning code you don't understand into code you don't understand.

The code details are pretty much all of the details, other than the protocols and standards.

If you understood the codebase of existing browsers (or at least could be confident in making arbitrary changes to existing browsers, perhaps with AI assistance?) then the triopoly wouldn't be threatening because you could just patch out manifestv3 whenever you want.

There is also the problem of people not testing their websites to be compatible with your custom browser. But I would say this is a problem on the protocol level.