Zoolander @ dpkonofa @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

920

Joined

2 yr. ago

I literally lived through it…lol. And I bought it. It was exclusive to Cingular and then AT&T (they bought Cingular). I don’t need to look it up.

The iPhone was $499 with a subsidy from AT&T. The RAZR had no such subsidy and could be bought without a contract or even from eBay. Even the most expensive “smartphones” on the market didn’t need a subsidized price. The device absolutely was expensive. You’re trying to revise history.

Your previous statement would suggest otherwise. It was something that was said verbatim about the iPhone.

He spent billions on a platform for which the primary audience (techie people) is not interested because his privacy and data position is a non-starter.

Most big tech like this takes off because techy people buy it and then show their friends. They help them buy and set up their own version of it to start until these companies eventually make it simple enough for non-techies. That’s how the game works.

Zuck made it completely unpalatable for those early adopters and he tied it to Facebook, a platform that young people despise. It was never going anywhere to begin with.

How can you possibly know that without having tried it? Spatial video alone could be life changing in more ways than one.

I think you’re forgetting how much the iPhone cost compared to the other phones of the time (and some that were even free with service). Now, no one thinks twice about spending $600 on a smartphone.

It’s not about whether it competes. It’s about whether a “reasonable person” could confuse it for being an authorized product of the IP owner. In this case, people could confuse it with both a licensed Nintendo product (since it runs on original hardware) and it could be confused with an official Valve release (since the content is an exact (as possible) recreation of the levels and assets from the original game.

That’s not the only problem, I think. It’s not an adaptation of their work, it’s a “demake” which means it uses original source files or, at best, exact recreations of that work. The other projects people are comparing this to adapted Valve’s work to make something original. This isn’t original and uses the existing name. It would be very easy for Valve to make the claim that this product could be confused as an official Valve product even if most people who are interested would know the difference or be able to tell.

I think people are missing the fact that most fanmade content that Valve has historically been ok with is all original material. Black Mesa, Portal Stories, and others all used the Valve IP but were all original content. This port actually uses Valve-created content so, regardless of Nintendo’s involvement (although it makes the demand for this action stronger), they legally have to enforce it or risk losing the legal protections for that property.

Nintendo just gave them a convenient way to stop it before they needed to do it anyways.

Yup. And, for the vast majority of users, the experience is going to become shittier and shittier.

It took Microsoft 98 attempts the first time! Then it took them an entire Millennium. Then 2000 attempts after that. And then after 12 more attempts, they've decided they need to change the keyboard... I'd say #14 ain't too bad.

It’s not that great of a solution, though. I dunno if anyone remembers but, when Gatekeeper (the interface to do this) first was added to MacOS, it was in response to a malware “virus scanner” that was out called MacKeeper. It was advertised as a malware scanner/Mac maintenance tool but it was just an ad platform that would inject all kinds of crap into your browser and run all kinds of keyloggers and things in the background.

As soon as Gatekeeper was released, the MacKeeper website made a specific page that had step-by-step instructions for how to disable Gatekeeper and it would prompt you to visit the page if MacKeeper ever made it onto your system. If you ever re-enabled it, it would prompt you to disable again and show you the instructions.

It’s an endless cat and mouse game. The only way this works is if they put it in as a multi-step terminal process. Novice users will not fuck with the terminal unless they know what they’re doing and are comfortable with the consequences.

Laziness alone is a pretty big reason. MFA was available and users were prompted to set it up. The fact that they didn’t should tell you something.

This assumes that the compromised credentials were made public prior to the exfiltration. In this case, it wasn’t as the data was being sold privately on the dark web. HIBP, Azure, and Nextcloud would have done nothing to prevent this.

It's a big enough detractor to make it cumbersome. It's not that easy to automate pulling an MFA code from an email when there are different providers involved and all that. The people that pulled this off pulled it off via a botnet and I would be very surprised if that botnet was able to recognize an MFA login and also login, get the code, enter it, and then proceed. It seems like more effort than it's worth at that point.

It’s just odd that people get such big hate boners from ignorance. Everything I’m reading about this is telling me that 23andMe should have enabled forced MFA before this happened rather than after, which I agree with, but that doesn’t mean this result is entirely their fault either. People need to take some personal responsibility sometimes with their own personal info.

Wow… it took you 9 days to come up with that?

And, yes…that’s exactly what it means. I didn’t assume anything. The topic is literally avoiding buying Pizza Hut because of bullshit like this and your response was “But muh stuffy crust!”. I didn’t assume anything. You laid it all out for everyone.

Or, apparently, as an independent board trying to determine if someone plagiarized…

So forced MFA is the only way to prevent what happened? That’s basically what you’re saying, right?

Their other mechanisms would prevent credential stuffing (e.g., rate limits, comparing login locations) so how was this still successful?

then the source is buried somewhere in the references without any indication that text was copied verbatim from it

This is where you got it wrong. There were citations earlier in the technical summaries as she was referencing the summaries from those papers. That’s why she’s being allowed to correct her citations. She mentions the author and the source document/book/article but then did not use quote marks to denote that follow-up statements were also quotations. That’s why it “didn’t rise to the level of plagiarism” and was instead judged to be insufficient citation.