jj4211 @ jj4211 @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

1,766

Joined

2 yr. ago

Sorry, there's no business case for rebasing those dependencies. Please focus story points on active marketing requirements instead.

Yeah, you open a bug like that in proprietary software and it will immediately get rationalized away as having no business case to address, likely with a person with zero direct development responsibility writing a bs explanation like the small impact was due to a number of architectural changes.

Speaking as someone with years of exposure to business managed issue handling.

Evidence suggests this isn't the case.

We know of so many more closed source backdoors despite them being harder to notice in practice. Either before they became a problem or after they have been used in an attack. So we know backdoors can get noticed even without access to source code.

Meanwhile we have comparatively fewer backdoor type findings in major open source software, despite and thanks to increased scrutiny. So many people want to pad their resume with "findings" and go hit up open source software relentlessly. This can be obnoxious because many of the findings are flat out incorrect or have no actual security implications, but among the noise is a relatively higher likelihood that real issues get noticed.

The nature of the xz attack shows the increased complexity associated with attempting to back door open source. Sneaking a malicious binary patch into test data, because the source code would be too obvious, and having to hide asking the patch in an obfuscated way in build scripts that would only apply in theory under specific circumstances. Meanwhile the closed source backdoors have frequently been pretty straightforward but still managed to ship and not be detected.

Even if we failed to detect unused backdoors, at some point someone would actually want to use their backdoor, so they should be found at some point.

I can't find the article now, but there was a news article that talked about "interstellar missions to mars", and it drove me nuts

You don't have to stage a scene, you can use modern displays, optics, and sensors to inject 'digital' strategies into the 'analog' approach.

The conceptual issue here is that most attempts at denying the legitimacy of content are not by people who actually operate the given equipment.

If a celebrity claims some third party footage is fake, that celebrity is not the one that would vouch/not vouch for it. If a paparazzi does something wrong, they'd sign it and say "yes it's authentic".

Now maybe you can say "Canon genuine" to say it's not the person, but the camera vendor, but again, with the right setup, you can good old analog feed doctored stuff into a legitimate sensor and get that signature.

Since the anchor for the signature almost never rests with the person who would ever contest the content, it's of limited use.

Traditional signing is enough to say "If I trust the AP, then I trust this image that the AP signed", no distributed ledger really suggested in this use case, since the trust is entirely around the identity of the originator, not based on consensus.

It's awesome that it gives you cooking tips you'll find no where else, like adding glue to improve the consistency of cheese. Or making sure you get your recommended daily serving amount of rocks.

Sadly, by the time you see that the button isn't there, you've already given them the visit and ad impressions... Well, unless you run an ad blocker but what horrible person would do that?

I feel like on image/video generation, I can agree that the recent months have shown a lot of progress.

I'm not so much feeling it on the text generation front, it's felt about the same to me for a while here, notably impressive, but still a bit... off...

Ok, ok, so maybe he doesn't like mexican food and doesn't like TACO.

Maybe he would like some Chinese food better? Like maybe Orange Chicken.

I agree that Tesla does and should be considered to have deeper problems, as more new players crowd out Tesla as well as "legacy" automakers in many ways also competing.

I feel like TSLA is still way out of wack. You put GM, Ford, Toyota, and Honda together and still you are less than half the market cap of Tesla. This is utterly absurd, even the "not up to snuff today, but they'll outgrow everyone" argument I don't see happening.

But as to his adventures in "Dark MAGA", he gets some people distracting him with shiny toys and telling him how smart he is and the world will largely forget that particular "contribution" in fairly short order. So long as it's not letting him declare that all Tesla products henceforth will adopt the cybertruck design language and quality, Tesla can benefit from him just stepping the hell out of the spotlight again.

The sad thing is if he steps away from politics, I think the outrage will subside in a couple of months. The public doesn't have that strong a memory in the best of times, with the pace of news nowadays, very few people will remember how much of problem he was being.

So yes, just locking him out of the spotlight would be enough. His leadership is not great, but distracting him could really save Tesla's image.

From what I call, the advocates kept saying:

• OnLive was just too soon, the internet needed to be better
• Google had just so much more resources at their disposal they could make it happen

Of course, no one ever explained why I would want to pay full price for a game and also have to pay a monthly fee to access it once purchased, which was the most mind boggling facet of Google's concept to me, even more boggling than trying to make games render server side when the cheapest end user device can just locally render PS3, maybe PS4 level graphics nowadays.

I remember some people very vehemently telling me that I was dumb to be skeptical of Stadia, that it really was going to just take over the industry...

Ironically, this is the result of various people at Microsoft at various times declaring "we need to scrap all this shit and start over"

There's some logic behind each, but each time assumes they don't have to do anything to port forward the previous approach to new UX standards as those will just die out. If it was roughly 13 screenshots of different developer experience, but consistent looking and behaving UI for the actual user, everyone could just shrug, maybe developers getting a bit grumpy about Microsoft's inconsistency.

Switching to Dvorak caused the gratifying result of people that would just start trying to use your keyboard without being absolutely befuddled.

The key map tends to apply to all keyboards.

The computing equivalent of a stick shift.

At what point do investors kind of shrug and stop believing his stated plans? He has waffled back and forth on this thing so much

More like the AI rationalized collapse of the industry.

The cuts largely have nothing at all to do with AI, but it makes for a very good narrative to spin at investors.