Undocumented "backdoor" found in Bluetooth chip used by a billion devices
Cosmic Cleric @ CosmicCleric @lemmy.world Posts 1Comments 3,230Joined 2 yr. ago
Cosmic Cleric @ CosmicCleric @lemmy.world
Posts
1
Comments
3,230
Joined
2 yr. ago
From the article ...
The “shadow fleet” refers to ageing oil tankers, the identities of which are hidden to help circumvent western economic sanctions imposed on Moscow since it launched its full-scale military invasion of Ukraine at the start of 2022.
the draft G7 statement seen by Bloomberg News shows the US pushed to remove the word “sanctions” as well as wording citing Russia’s “ability to maintain its war” in Ukraine by replacing it with “earn revenue”.
This was said by a Reddit admin ...
Relatedly, we are only warning folks that repeatedly vote on clearly violating content that instigates or promotes violence.
So it does seem to specifically be about voting, and not trying to avoid bans.
Honestly think this is newsworthy and worth talking about here as well, if not moreso...
Just the fact that someone gets noticed and potentially talked to if they just upvote, and not say anything, seems like something that's never been done before, and is a bit shocking to see.
For what it’s worth, most of your comments aren’t eligible for copyright; they aren’t sufficiently original or information-packed. Just like @onlinepersona@programming.dev and their licensing efforts, it’s mostly a vanity to attach a license to unoriginal one-line throwaway jokes. I wouldn’t say that it’s arrogant so much as lacking in self-awareness; a one-liner must be deeply insightful, contain a pun or paraprosdokian, address the current zeitgeist, or otherwise be memorable above and beyond the time and place that contextualized it.
I disagree. And last I checked, I have awareness on the subject. It's been discussed very often with me here on Lemmy (much less on Reddit for some reason).
Your measurement of what is content is not legally factual. One's opinions, of any length (and I think it's safe to say that my opining has not been short in nature) is legally considered as content.
You may not like my content, but it doesn't mean you can disavow it as content in the first place.
And once more, as a friendly reminder. If you feel my content is not content, feel free to block me.
From the article, the reason for the closure is the upcoming Online Safety Act.
I'm quoting you, but okay. I've made my point, I rather not discuss it further either.
Also, the pattern is getting repetitive and noticeable.
Have a nice day.
I do stand by what I said about derailing a conversation though, I would say that to anyone, under the same circumstances.
I don’t think gatekeeping others with “you can only talk about the thread topic” is a healthy way to do that, so we diverge there.
I’m not going to stop doing it and, if you look around, you’ll see plenty of others doing it too, so I’m in good company there.
It’s nicer if we let conversation flow naturally and don’t set arbitrary constraints - the mods can do that via the community rules if they want to but, again, you won’t find many examples of that either.
My understanding is that derailing any conversation, hijacking it, has been frowned up socially, both in 1) social media (since the days of dialing into BBS sites with our modems), as well as 2) in real life. Something that is considered harmful/distractful to the ACTUAL conversation being had.
Fun fact. "Conversation Hijacking" is even used in nefarious ways as part of social engineering to get into your computer (actually true, look it up). That it is a type of phishing scam.
Are you saying that is no longer the case, that it is ok to derail/hijack a conversation?
The links I supplied above seem to say otherwise, and that's my understanding of the current consensus of the Internet/Humanity.
If my comments make you feel sad, feel free to block. 🤷♂️
I'm capable of doing so, if I want to. But again, its not my job to enforce it, I'm just availing myself to the laws protection, like all other citizens, corporation, or individual.
Why be like that? Whether you think their position is silly or not, this person obviously gets called out on this a lot.
Well, at least he's being more polite about it than this guy ...
“I will be shitting on you and your stupid fucking license vociferously from here on out because you’re an arrogant egotistical asshole.,”
But yeah, didn't think responding with informative links would be considered as disrespecting someone. 🤷♂️
And rather than pitch a fit over being needled about it for the umpteenth time, they responded with links that ought to satisfy any genuine curiosity. Considering the times I’ve seen an empty “Go educate yourself!” as a response from petulant children, I’d say buddy did us a solid. They don’t owe us a personalized response.
Originally I was just telling people to look through my chat history, as I had discussed the same topic many many times before, and didn't want to detail the conversation by having to talk about it again.
But I was told that that was rude of me to do, and someone suggested I supply links instead. So I did. But apparently that's not the right thing to do either.
I actually have been trying to work with the community about this in good faith, but each thing I do something as a compromise it seems to be complained about anyway, never satisfying those who dislike me having a license declaration.
At this point I'm just sticking with the smaller font and using links when someone asks me about the license, there's nothing else I can do to satisfy those people who object, and I'm NOT going to discontinue licensing my content.
Appreciate the civility support, thank you.
I don’t particularly like being lumped in with a bunch of jerks who’ve treated you badly tbh, but equally if you’re feeling harassed I’m happy to put a pin in this.
I won't lie, I've been harassed so much (sincerely, check out my posting history, its a trip) that at this point its hard to distinguish people who are just curious, and people who are truly rude/trolling/intellectually dishonest. If you're one of the former, my apologies.
I do stand by what I said about derailing a conversation though, I would say that to anyone, under the same circumstances.
Have a nice day.
Derailing a conversation? That’s a bit dramatic… And now you are doing it by your own measure. I was just having a conversation, in a comment thread man. Chill out.
Are we talking about why fastDOOM is fast right now? No, we're not. That's called derailing a conversation.
As far as me chilling out, I've actually had someone else say this to me...
“I will be shitting on you and your stupid fucking license vociferously from here on out because you’re an arrogant egotistical asshole.,”
There's a history with people harassing me about using an open-source license in my comments. Just check out my posting history, and you'll see that I'm not being dramatic at all.
maybe if everyone is telling you the same thing, it’s not us that’s wrong? food for thought.
One, not everybody is telling me the same thing. I learned to do this from someone else here on Lemmy, and I've had others tell me that they like that I'm doing what I'm doing, and that its ok to do.
Two, never heard anybody give a valid reason why I'm wrong, just that I'm wasting my time, or that they don't like me doing it because it bothers them to see it, as if they want the Internet to format what they see to their personal tastes/likes.
Three, its a single line of text that appears in a smaller font at the bottom/footer of a comment. If people are really getting bent out of shape over it, then maybe they need to do some self-interspection on their end.
Four, if its not a smaller font line of text, and they seeing regular sized formatting text, then they need to talk to the developers of the client they are using, and ask them to support sub/superscript fonts. The web site client shows it just fine.
https://lemmy.world/comment/15480159
Also, it takes two long presses. One to copy, and one to paste.
all due respect, but you are not a news entity and you will never know whether your license was honored, so i really don’t see the point. but like i said, you do you
The point is to have protection for my content. I have the same rights under the law as ANYBODY ELSE. All are capable of licensing their content on social sites that protects themselves with Safe Harbor laws.
As far as enforcement goes, that is not my job. If a law is not enforced doesn't mean I don't try to avail myself of the protections under the law. I don't constantly audit my local police force to be sure that they are enforcing laws.
I want my content to be available and used by open-source organizations, and I signal that via my license. Otherwise the default licensing (show nothing) does not allow them to do so.
Finally, is it really worth your time (and all other citizens) to nag/harrass someone away from using the same laws that Corporations use to their benefit? I mean I point to an "Ask Lemmy" post often (here, let me do it again) where this has been hashed out already. You're not saying anything new. But it seems like every individual still wants to recreate the conversation again, and again, and again, for SOME strange reason.
not sure if it is effective
Well, if its good enough for ProPublica, and others, its good enough for me. 👍
In a 'Dad' joke sort of way, sure, I'd agree with that.
Its also a typo for wood that makes squeaking sounds.
(A typo is a terrible thing to waste. 😜 )
From the article ...
From the person I'm replying to ...
Don't see how that would matter much. The "scope of the vulnerability" is sufficiently large enough that it should not be partially or otherwise discredited as a risk.
If someone owns a Bluetooth device, then its fair to think that at some point they'd actually use it, being vulnerable to the backdoor access. That's billions of uses right there, on a regular basis.
From the article ...
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0