douglasg14b @ douglasg14b @lemmy.world

Posts

11

Comments

949

Joined

2 yr. ago

Build it, don't turn it on, watch all the residents complain about new ailments and conditions caused by the 5G.

Reveal that it's never even been powered to really hammer home their ignorant bullshit.

The cognitively impaired should not be able to do this sort of shit.

And depending on the results of the upcoming election the FTC may no longer exist afterwards anyways.

I'm not sure if this is just a rhetorical question or a real one?

Because I didn't claim it isn't negligence. It is negligent, however, it is not a problem solvable by just pointing fingers. It's a problem that solvable through more strict regulation and compliance.

Cyber security is almost exactly the same as safety in other industries. It takes the same mindset, it manifests in the same ways under the same conditions, it tends to only be resolved and enforced through regulations....etc

And we all know that safety is not something solvable by pointing fingers, and saying "Well Joe Smo shouldn't have had his hand in there then". You develop processes to avoid predictable outcomes.

That's the key word here, predictable outcomes, these are predictable situations with predictable consequences.

The comment above mine is effectively victim blaming, it's just dismissing the problem entirely instead of looking at solutions for it. Just like an industry worker being harmed on the job because of the negligence of their job site, there are an incredibly large number of websites compromised due to the negligence of our industry.

Just like the job site worker who doesn't understand the complex mechanics of the machine they are using to perform their work, the website owner or maintainer does not understand the complex mechanics of the dependency chains their services or sites rely on.

Just like a job site worker may not have a good understanding of risk and risk mitigation, a software engineer does not have a good understanding of cybersecurity risk and risk mitigation.

In a job site this is up to a regulatory body to define, utilizing the expertise of many, and to enforce this in job sites. On job sites workers will go through regular training and exercises that educate them about safety on their site. For software engineers there is no regulatory body that performs enforcement. And for the most part software engineers do not go through regular training that informs them of cybersecurity safety.

That's not how systemic problems work.

This is probably one of the most security ignorant takes on here.

People will ALWAYS fuck up. The world we craft for ourselves must take the "human factor" into account, otherwise we amplify the consequences of what are predictable outcomes. And ignoring predictable outcomes to take some high ground doesn't cary far.

The majority of industries that actually have immediate and potentially fatal consequences do exactly this, and have been for more than a generation now.

Damn near everything you interact with on a regular basis has been designed at some point in time with human psychology in mind. Built on the shoulders of decades of research and study results, that have matured to the point of becoming "standard practices".

Now we just need accessibility tools for the cognitively impaired that can't seem to read the damn article.

Typical security negligence of startups.

Your data is essentially never secure if it's sitting with a startup. It's an atrocious world for security out there.

Literally the first thing you do on NoStupidQuestions is attack the person asking the question.

And then go on a rant that doesn't actually address the question. I honestly don't even know if you read the same OP that I did here...

Cmon, that's not acceptable behavior here.

Because the lowest common denominator is much MUCH lower than you think it is.

This means it's easy to indoctrinate and easy to maintain that for a massive number of people.

Scientific illiteracy is extremely high, and actual "6th grade reading comprehension" is the highest level of literacy for > 50% of a country like the U.S. and ~20% are low literacy or actually illiterate.

This means that half of everyone in the U.S. can read and understand what they read at or below a 6th grade level. This isn't "reading big words", it's "tell us about what you read", "what is the relationship between x & y" type questions.

This comment for example, up to this point only, would be difficult to understand & comprehend for > 50% of people in the U.S. (it demands an 11th grade reading comprehension). And may be misread, misunderstood, or not understood at all.

People are driven to religions to cults and alt conspiracy theories when they don't understand how the world works around them. They latch onto extremely simple often misleading or incorrect ideas of how the world works because they can understand it and it "makes sense" within their sphere of ignorance (we all have one, this isn't meant to be a disparaging term).

This means that the problem is that humans are just not smart enough to escape religion yet. It's the simplest answer, and it appears to be correct.

I don't think the concern over pinging 1.1.1.1 is warranted.

ICMP is pretty raw Network traffic, meaning you're not really causing much actual load here.

You can't even really try to DDOS with normal ICMP packets. You usually have have to max it's size out at 64KB with an ICMP floor to even think of having an effect. Vs the, effectively inconsequential, 32 bytes of a normal ICMP packet.

You watching a short YouTube video is equivalent Network load as 180 days of pinging for Network up time.

It's not as easy to defeat as just changing the pixel....

CSAM detection often uses existing features for image matching such as PhotoDNA by Microsoft. Similarly both Facebook and Google also have image matching algorithms and software that is used for CSAM detection which.

These are all hash based image matching tools used for broad feature sets such as reverse image search in bing, and are not defeated by simply changing a pixel. Or even redrawing parts of the whole image itself.

You're not just throwing an md5 or an sha at an images binary. It's much more nuanced and complex than that, otherwise hash based image matching would be essentially useless for anything of consequence.

The language it's written in has very little, almost nothing, to do with how efficient larger applications are.

This is almost entirely up to the design and day-to-day decisions of the developers. These almost always outweigh the efficiencies of the underlying languages themselves (within reason).

A single location of poor data access patterns could negate the aggregate performance gains of your entire application, as an example. A framework that prevents you from making simple mistakes and drives you towards more efficient patterns goes much further than the language is written in.

Between Rust, C#, Java, and Go you're essentially even on performance for large applications (with C# pushing ahead of the pack). What you are not even on is engineering efficiency, it's going to take considerably longer to build the same set of features in rust than any of the others listed. And the performance is likely the same, potentially even worse depending on the maturity of the ecosystem.

Rust is a great systems design language and a great language to choose when developing high efficiency libraries & frameworks for I/O and data processing. It's not really a great choice for application development due to how slow it is to actually get things done in.

I fully expect to see alternate backends written in more operationally efficient languages over the next decade that will catch up to the official Lemmy codebase, and potentially even replace it. It actually sounds like a super fun project, funding is always a problem though.

They keep giving us more reasons to sail the high seas.

Your biggest mistake was automatically assuming anything in corporation says is a lie, and projecting that into me.

All that matters is the track record.

This comment aged like milk given they had already lifted the ban.

This is what LGPL is for.

You can still use a library like a library freely, without restriction, but you are keeping your IP protected from being copied cloned and modified elsewhere.

I'm going to guess because of the tools that don't use LGPL.

Which makes them quite limiting and kind of controversial since you have to adopt their license from my understanding, even if used as a library.

I try and use LGPL on all my projects since it allows others to use the Library as a library, and anyone that wants to modify or use the source has to copy left.

It really is, holy crap. It's like 1 paragraph per ad.

Did you read the article? No? Cmon. You should start doing that before drawing conclusions.

This is noted as a temporary block on the specific extensions ONLY within the country with regulatory power to ban Firefox. Russia.

Mozilla has stated this is temporary so they can have the breathing room to figure out how to navigate this. Since this goes against their principles.

It's either Firefox is banned in Russia, or they do this. Which causes more harm? That's a rough choice for them to need to make.

Welcome to the lowest common denominator.

It's an infuriating world.