People will still fall for it by treating it like a demonstration of what Elon wants to make, and just an early prototype. The abilities these “robots” displayed are on par with technology that has been available for over 20 years. They don’t realize the parts missing, filled in by human intervention, are the most difficult parts to create and literally cannot be done without a major, generational breakthrough in AI.
Yeah, it was a guy they had come out on stage and do a dance in a morph suit and a helmet.
They don’t. They are not competitors. This is not a product that exists as a real purchasable item. Those little robot dog toys are closer to BD than what Elon has done here.
Then run it in a container under a better distribution if you desperately need to put neofetch on your HTPC. Or run the other distro in a container under libreelec since I’m pretty sure it supports them.
It tracks anonymous statistics, without my express consent, for the benefit of a third party. I do not care if it exists to replace cookies, because I’m not even convinced that cookies need to exist at all anymore. What utility do they provide to the actual person using the browser that can’t be accomplished through some other more modern API? If the only functionality left to replace is tracking people then maybe just deprecate them and move on.
Telegram had credibility. It was being used by journalists to protect sources.
You can extend trust to individuals but do not apply that to companies or organizations if you care at all about what they’re doing with what you give them. Not everyone has some mythical tech privacy wizard on call to give them perfect advice every time they open an account on an app or website.
Even client side encryption is not infallible. The algorithm you use will eventually be crackable and probably sooner than you think. Nothing lasts forever.
The most foolproof way to ensure something remains private is to not put it on the internet at all.
If you can read and understand the code, sure. Otherwise you’re still just extending trust to someone perhaps less reputable than even the corporations who are dying to sell you out. For example, the back door some mysterious contributor slipped into xz recently.
My recommendation is to live life as if privacy on the internet did not exist, because it doesn’t.
Never trust a third party to keep your shit private. Especially if privacy is their main selling point.
deleted by creator
Yet even if the snack-dye technique remains relegated to lab mice, it offers a better window into one of the most commonly used model organisms than we’ve ever had before.
The writer was definitely smirking to himself when he wrote this line.
The only thing that has successfully managed to thwart the FBI in their attempts to break into a phone was Apple’s hardware based encryption. To such an extent that they took legal and legislative actions to try and circumvent it. The specifics of how the encryption works is irrelevant to this argument, and you are more than welcome to consider that point conceded.
I’m not claiming iPhones are superior. I don’t care about dumb OS wars, just don’t put things on your phone expecting that they can’t be retrieved. That’s the only point I’m trying to make here.
And the keys absolutely would give them access since those keys are used to sign Apple software which runs with enough privileges to access the encryption keys stored in the “Secure Enclave”. Anything you entrust to a company’s software is only as secure as the company wants to make it, and the only company to publicly resist granting that acces is Apple (so far)
The Secure Enclave is a component on Apple system on chip (SoC) that is included on all recent iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, Apple TV and HomePod devices, and on a Mac with Apple silicon as well as those with the Apple T2 Security Chip. The Secure Enclave itself follows the same principle of design as the SoC does, containing its own discrete boot ROM and AES engine. The Secure Enclave also provides the foundation for the secure generation and storage of the keys necessary for encrypting data at rest, and it protects and evaluates the biometric data for Face ID and Touch ID.
https://support.apple.com/guide/security/hardware-security-overview-secf020d1074/web
The FBI wanted access to Apple’s encryption keys which they use to sign their software. They don’t have ‘your’ encryption keys, they have their own that the FBI wanted to use to bypass these features. They eventually dropped it because they found a zero day exploit which apple fixed in later versions. That is why the newer phones aren’t vulnerable (yet).
They’re exploiting vulnerabilities and back doors not brute forcing your passcode. The only way you’re keeping them out is with hardware encryption which the iPhone has and probably why it’s the only one not vulnerable. Hardware encryption also won’t matter if your vendor shares their keys with law enforcement. As far as I’m aware, Apple is the only one that’s gone to court and successfully defended their right to refuse access to encryption keys.
Don’t put anything incriminating on your phones.
Wow the head of AI for MS doesn’t know what the word freeware means.
You’re making a lot of claims about things I don’t think you really have a grasp on. “Toxic masculinity” is not an implication that all men are inherently toxic. It’s a criticism of societal expectations for men that harm them and their relationships.
You’re saying that feminism has seriously hindered acceptance of male masturbation but all you’ve provided here is vague unsubstantiated implications of media bias and a single author’s name. I’m not going to read the entire collected works of whoever Dworkin is to figure out why you think they’re both representative of the entire feminist movement and also hate men wanking it. Give me something tangible here. A quote, a law they supported, a speech, a video, literally anything at all that isn’t just some insinuation that’s only attributable to yourself
I would consider myself a male feminist and I masturbate daily so if the movement thinks that’s wrong I’d like to know so I can stop describing myself as feminist.
You’ve been clear about what you think dude, we want to know why you think it.
That’s not an explanation you just restated the claim they asked you to elaborate on. What have you encountered that led you to this conclusion?
If they want people to keep shopping there and providing the income necessary to maintain that charitable work, they should probably try to maintain the perception that they price things cheaply enough to make it worth digging through racks of second hand goods.