This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. View on remote instance

kibiz0r ,

Pirating Windows for your own personal, private use, which will never directly make you a single dollar: HIGHLY ILLEGAL

Scraping your creative works so they can make billions by selling automated processes that compete against your work: Perfectly fine and normal!

kibiz0r ,

It’s not even piracy though. I never saw anyone torrent Windows_XP_Home_Cracked.iso and go “Hey guys, check out this operating system I made!”

kibiz0r , (edited )

Comments here: “Yeah right, I’ll believe it when they explain how.”

Article: literally has a section explaining how

Edit:

Replies: "Yeah, but that's just a summary. I'll believe it when they explain in full detail."

Article: literally has a link to the detailed explanation

kibiz0r ,

I think part of the problem is that when you read about the horrors of the Holocaust as a kid, you can't help but think of Nazi Germany as a cartoonishly, outlandishly evil place full of people who spend every waking second thinking about how much they hate impure bloodlines.

You come away with an impression that it should be obvious when genocide is happening.

Then you go home after school and you see something about genocide in the Middle East, and you ask your parents about it and they say "Well... it's complicated." And if it's complicated -- if it's not cartoonishly, outlandishly evil -- then it must not be genocide.

'LLM-free' is the new '100% organic' - Creators Are Fighting AI Anxiety With an ‘LLM-Free’ Movement ( www.theatlantic.com )

As soon as Apple announced its plans to inject generative AI into the iPhone, it was as good as official: The technology is now all but unavoidable. Large language models will soon lurk on most of the world’s smartphones, generating images and text in messaging and email apps. AI has already colonized web search, appearing in...

kibiz0r ,

So, literally the story of the actual Luddites. Or what they attempted to do before capitalists poured a few hundred bullets into them.

kibiz0r ,

It’s only hacking if it’s in a CVE.

Anything else is just sparkling unauthorized access.

Some company heads hoped return-to-office mandates would make people quit, survey says ( arstechnica.com )

Nearly two in five (37 percent) managers, directors, and executives believe their organization enacted layoffs in the last year because fewer employees than they expected quit during their RTO. And their beliefs are well-founded: One in four (25 percent) VP and C-suite executives and one in five (18 percent) HR pros admit they...

kibiz0r ,

As a contractor, your client isn’t allowed to dictate your work methods. It’s one of the things the IRS looks at when identifying misclassified employees.

kibiz0r ,

Article says it’s likely an OpenAI partnership.

kibiz0r ,

So wait, the AI is destroying cat-girls?

kibiz0r ,

That looks like a pretty good deal. At least on paper. ASUS is having a bit of a consumer care meltdown at the moment, so you may wanna check that situation out before you decide. (Search “gamers nexus asus”)

kibiz0r ,

ADHD is like:

  • You can do a 4-day task in 4 hours
  • Or a 8-minute task in 8 days

But you can’t control which.

kibiz0r ,

Recently did some research on what the treatment would be for a particular deficiency.

Found that general-purpose multivitamins provide about 0.5% of the therapeutic amount.

So yeah, there can be a massive difference between the little bit of help a multivitamin can give vs. what you really need for a specific condition.

kibiz0r ,

Kirby was earlier seen telling Netanyahu: “I’m gonna count to 3, young man! 1… 2… 2.5… 2.75… 2.8…”

kibiz0r ,

The secret of AI is that it’s really exploited humans all the way down.

The unpaid people who produce the training data, the underpaid people who categorize it, the underpaid people who rate the model’s responses, and the underpaid (and t r a u m a t i z e d) people who review flagged user interactions.

kibiz0r ,

How do you send 200x as much data?

You don’t. The external system needs to run an approximation of the internal system, which the internal system will also run and only transmit differences.

There you go. Solved it. (By delegating to a new problem.)

kibiz0r ,

Reported for posting a picture of me without my consent.

kibiz0r ,

Personal use of business assets is generally frowned upon by the IRS.

kibiz0r ,

Can I super-mega-ultra upvote this?

It's the same playbook as ever. Doubt can only be explained by ignorance, failure can only be explained by under-committing,

The only way to have a "valid" opinion is to have already bought-in and be actively selling other people on it. It's the same mentality as a cult or a pyramid scheme.

kibiz0r , (edited )

That’s pretty much the whole point.

Making use of other people’s work and likeness in a way that removes any obligations you would normally have to those people.

Just clearly define “copyright violation” for them, and they’ll craft a method that technically eludes your definition.

kibiz0r ,

Basically mom saying “I don’t care who started it.”

kibiz0r ,

I feel there now has to be a distinction made between “Capital Libertarians” and “Individual Libertarians”.

You might be interested in Isaiah Berlin's "Two Concepts of Liberty".

Basically, there is no absolute thing called "liberty", because anything you do changes the material world and the state of the material world also shapes what you're able to do. So you can't talk about simply "liberty", and must always describe it in terms of those two relationships. What Berlin calls "freedom to" and "freedom from".

For instance, I might consider my liberty to mean that I have the "freedom to" shoot a gun in the air. My neighbors might consider their liberty to mean that they have the "freedom from" falling bullets.

We can't create a policy which guarantees both "freedom to" and "freedom from" for all people. But we can create a policy that guarantees both for some people. We just have to allow that some people get to enjoy both the rights and the protections, while other people lack the rights and must suffer the consequences of others' actions.

And that might be why the contemporary conservative version of so-called "libertarianism" plays so well with a notion of a superior social class, whether that's economic, religious, or racial. You can invoke the word "liberty" in support of your attempts to bully others, and then you can invoke it again as a protection against others' attempts to bully you.

kibiz0r ,

It is strange and striking that climate change activists have not committed any acts of terrorism. After all, terrorism is for the individual by far the modern world’s most effective form of political action, and climate change is an issue about which people feel just as strongly as about, say, animal rights. This is especially noticeable when you bear in mind the ease of things like blowing up petrol stations, or vandalising SUVs. In cities, SUVs are loathed by everyone except the people who drive them; and in a city the size of London, a few dozen people could in a short space of time make the ownership of these cars effectively impossible, just by running keys down the side of them, at a cost to the owner of several thousand pounds a time. Say fifty people vandalising four cars each every night for a month: six thousand trashed SUVs in a month and the Chelsea tractors would soon be disappearing from our streets. So why don’t these things happen?

kibiz0r ,

But LoSavio had opted out of the arbitration agreement and was given the option of filing an amended complaint.

This is why it’s important to opt out of arbitration!

Also notice the potential for fuckery in the statute of limitations here:

the relevant statutes of limitations range from two to four years, and LoSavio sued over five years after buying the car. Under the delayed discovery rule, the limitations period begins when "the plaintiff has, or should have, inquiry notice of the cause of action."

But when Tesla declined to update his car's cameras in April 2022, "LoSavio allegedly discovered that he had been misled by Tesla's claim that his car had all the hardware needed for full automation."

Without that specific moment to point to, to reset the clock through delayed discovery, Tesla could just say “Yeah, we lied, but you bought the lie for 5 years, so now we’re in the clear!”

kibiz0r ,

I like the concept of an RTS.

Deciding how to invest my resources, where to expand, when to attack, defend, or retreat, scouting and countering my opponent’s plans…

…but when it comes to the physical act of doing this stuff, it feels so horribly awkward that it’s like I’m fighting the UI more than my opponent.

Clicking and dragging selection boxes as if my troops are always in a rectangle formation? Right-clicking to attack but accidentally moving instead… And ugh, the endless series of tedious build queues.

The actual mechanics feel more like data entry — the kind with real bad RSI — than military leadership.

kibiz0r ,

Microservices can be useful, but yeah working in a codebase where every little function ends up having to make a CAP Theorem trade-off is exhausting, and creates sooo many weird UX situations.

I’m sure tooling will mature over time to ease the pain of representing in-flight, rolling-back, undone, etc. states across an entire system, but right now it feels like doing reactive programming without observables.

And also just… not everything needs to scale like whoa. And they can scale in different ways: queue up-front, data replication afterwards, syncing ledgers of CRDTs… Scaling in-flight operations is often the worst option. But it feels familiar, so it’s often the default choice.

kibiz0r ,

I'm talking about user interactions, not deployments.

In a monolith with a transactional data store, you can have a nice and clean atomic state transition from one complete, valid state to the next in a single request/response.

With a distributed system, you'll often have scenarios where the component which receives the initial request can't guarantee the final state of the system by the time it needs to produce a response.

If it did, it would spend most of its effort orchestrating other components. That would couple them together and be no more useful than a monolith, just with new and exciting failure modes. So really the best it can do is tell the client "Here's a token you can use to check back on the state of this operation later".

And because data is often partitioned between different services, you can end up having partially-applied state changes. This leaves the data in an otherwise-invalid state, which must be accounted for -- simply because of an implementation detail, not because it's semantically meaningful to the client.

In operations that have irreversible or non-idempotent external side-effects, this can be especially difficult to manage. You may want to allow the client to resume from immediately before or after the side-effect if there is a failure later on. Or you may want to schedule the side-effect, from the perspective of an earlier component in the chain, so that it happens even if a middle component fails (like the equivalent of a catch or finally block).

If you try to cut corners by representing these things as special cases where the later components send data back to earlier ones, you end up introducing cycles in the data flow of your microservices. And then you're in for a world of hurt. It's better if you can represent it as a finite state machine, from the perspective of some coordinator component that's not part of the data flow itself. But that's a ton of work.

It complicates every service that deals with it, and it gets really messy to just manage the data stores to track the state. And if you have queues and batching and throttling and everything else, along with granular permissions... Things can break. And they can break in really horrible ways, like infinitely sending the same data to an external service because the components keep tossing an event back to each other.

There are general patterns -- like sagas, distributed transactions, and event-sourcing -- which can... kind of ease this problem. But they're fundamentally limited by the CAP Theorem. And there isn't a universally-accepted clean way to implement them, so you're pretty much doing it from scratch each time.

Don't get me wrong. Sometimes "Here's a token to check back later" and modeling interactions as a finite state machine rather than an all-or-nothing is the right call. Some interactions should work that way. But you should build them that way on purpose, not to work around the downsides of a cool buzzword you decided to play around with.

kibiz0r ,

Why is it the exposed shoulder that bothers me the most?

kibiz0r , (edited )

Instantly makes ransomware [edit 2: my brain was being dumb, I didn't mean literally ransomware, I meant hackers blackmailing companies with the threat of releasing/selling stolen data] far more profitable.

Edit: And heavily discourages self-reporting. There’s a Schneier quote I like: “You can't defend. You can't prevent. The only thing you can do is detect and respond.”

kibiz0r ,

The ban is a dumb policy, but you’re daft if you think the security implications are at all similar.

TikTok was caught injecting a keylogger into their in-app browser and their response was “Well yeah, but we promise we’re not using it.”

kibiz0r ,

No. This is analogous to cross-frame scripting.

So imagine you go to tiktok.com and you click on a link to bestbuy.com/cool-product-i-want-to-buy. But instead of taking you directly to bestbuy.com/cool-product-i-want-to-buy, it keeps you on tiktok.com and just opens an iframe with a keylogger injected into it.

So then when you enter credit card info into the bestbuy.com UI, the tiktok.com JS can see what you typed.

(This scenario is largely impossible these days, due to modern browser security.)

The difference is that if you witnessed this kind of XFS in your desktop browser, you might notice it because the location bar still says tiktok.com, because you never actually left the site. But in a mobile in-app browser, you don't need an iframe. You can inject JS directly into the browser itself, making it invisible to the user. As far as you can tell, you're on regular ol' bestbuy.com, not a modified version of it.

kibiz0r ,

Absolutely. But the penalty does modify the cost-benefit analysis. If a hacker demands $5m or else they will release stolen data, you might be more inclined to YOLO the 5 mil on the 1% chance they're an honest hacker if the penalty for the breach is $50bn.

kibiz0r , (edited )

lmao, you asked.

I'm not a security expert, but my tech career has involved a lot of automated testing in weird scenarios, including iframe-based Facebook games and browser-based mobile apps. Automated tests face a lot of the same challenges that a malicious third-party would, so I know a little bit about how to get past them -- or rather, how to deliberately create vulnerabilities (in the dev build of your system) so that your tests can get past them.

Edit: I am curious why someone downvoted me on that one though. I can understand how my comment about the ban being dumb but TikTok also shipping a keylogger could anger people on one side or the other. But just explaining how in-app browsers revive a security problem that's been long-solved in standalone browsers?

kibiz0r ,

Bit of a misdirect in the headline. This was not primarily a scientific projection. This was a political reckoning by scientists who had recently suffered the bureaucratic pain of serving on the IPCC, and voluntarily responded to a survey.

As one climate scientist put it:

"As many of the scientists pointed out, the uncertainty in future temperature change is not a physical science question: It is a question of the decisions people choose to make," Texas Tech University climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe wrote on social media. "We are not experts in that; And we have little reason to feel positive about those, since we have been warning of the risks for decades."

Change never comes from politicians first, but these are people who are zoomed in on whether politicians are changing their minds.

They're not going to change their minds slowly over time. It's gonna be nothing at all until the electorate is too loud to ignore, and then suddenly 100% of officials will claim they've "always condemned fossil fuels", "from day one", and "in the strongest terms possible".

We've seen time and again that policy changes tend to bubble just below the surface for long time and then suddenly emerge with multiple changes happening in quick succession.

I was of voting age when just saying the word "civil union" in the context of gay rights was political suicide, and I'm not that old. Things can change quickly. Keep your hope alive and keep agitating. We can do this.

kibiz0r ,

First, they sent the missionaries. They built communities, facilities for the common good, and spoke of collaboration and mutual prosperity. They got so many of us to buy into their belief system as a result.

Then, they sent the conquistadors. They took what we had built under their guidance, and claimed we "weren't using it" and it was rightfully theirs to begin with.

kibiz0r ,

The quality really doesn't matter.

If they manage to strip any concept of authenticity, ownership or obligation from the entirety of human output and stick it behind a paywall, that's pretty much the whole ball game.

If we decide later that this is actually a really bullshit deal -- that they get everything for free and then sell it back to us -- then they'll surely get some sort of grandfather clause because "Whoops, we already did it!"

kibiz0r ,

This whole thing reminds me of “The Dress”.

Two people can look at the same thing, but see completely different things. And the way that they see it seems completely obvious and unambiguous to them. To the point where it’s hard to understand how anyone could claim to see anything else.

Take that same dynamic and apply it to a very loosely-defined question with very specific emotionally-charged answers, and you’ve got… Well, basically, a blueprint for social media engagement.

Wait, isn’t this just what BuzzFeed turned into a whole business? Did we loop back around to 2010?

kibiz0r ,

Seems to be a pretty good attempt, actually.

My mobile client doesn't show downvotes, so I was surprised when I saw exactly how bad the stats on this post are. Like, I saw all the comments declaring it a wasteland, but... Holy shit.

I hope we develop a new form of media literacy to deal with this kind of stuff.

[Serious] Why do so many people seem to hate veganism?

Seen a lot of posts on Lemmy with vegan-adjacent sentiments but the comments are typically very critical of vegan ideas, even when they don't come from vegans themselves. Why is this topic in particular so polarising on the internet? Especially since unlike politics for example, it seems like people don't really get upset by it...

kibiz0r ,

Cuz it itches the part of our brain that looks for status-seeking behavior and labels people as inauthentic.

Being vegetarian places a degree of exclusivity onto your consumer habits, and in the Western capitalist lens, conspicuous consumption has a lot to do with how we communicate our status.

Being vegan stands in direct relationship to vegetarianism as being even more exclusive. This does two things:

  1. It raises the stakes, because now the identity is even more exclusive because it's more restrictive.
  2. It creates a pattern, where it looks as if you're saying "Oh yeah? Well, I'm even vegetarianer! Take that! Look how cool I am!"

Just that in and of itself puts vegans on the receiving end of a whole bunch of cognitive biases.

But wait, there's more!

Because mass production never lets a social identity go to waste, major brands got on board with explicitly labeling things as vegan, which starts to make it seem like you're trying to be cool but really just deepthroating the corporate cock to "buy your way to cool".

And then came the trends of organic/non-GMO, local-first, artisanal, farm-to-table, etc. etc.

At the point where Wal-Mart has their own artisanal farm-to-table cheese brand, it starts to look (to our dumb pattern-matching brains) like vegans are just rubes falling for the most basic version of an obviously fake status-seeking game propped up by cynical brands preying on how desperate you are to look cool.

But wait, there's even more!

Because, surprise -- our brains never actually stop caring about status, even if we think we're just trying to make rational, objective, moral choices. Picturing yourself as a rebel for being vegan, taking the sneers and the insults in stride because you know it's the right choice for the planet... is appealing.

And that self-aggrandizing image is inseparable from actually doing the thing, because that's just how our brains work. Even for the most pure-hearted among us, thinking we're morally superior -- especially in tangible ways that we get to physically play out on a daily basis -- is intoxicating.

So the people who are chuckling about the inauthenticity are... kind of right. But this same dynamic exists for literally everything. So when you chuckle at the vegan, but then take a moment to consider which kind of bacon really speaks to who you are as a consumer, you're playing the same game. It's just one that far more people are invested into. So if anyone calls it silly, nobody takes that criticism seriously. Not like your organic local-first artisanal acai kale kombutcha.

--

Basically my recollection of this episode of You Are Not So Smart: https://soundcloud.com/youarenotsosmart/selling-out-andrew-potter

...which I listened to, for the first time, as an attempt at bonding with my then-girlfriend/now-wife's roommate. We had not gotten along up until then, because she was aggressively vegan and I ate a lot of fast food. But I found out she liked podcasts and I was really enjoying this one and there was a new episode I hadn't heard yet! She really enjoyed it, until the guest talked about veganism as a form of status-seeking. That didn't go well. I didn't mind taking over her half of the lease though.

kibiz0r ,

I’ma press X to doubt here.

They're not going to be using cloud services

Job listing for back-end engineer at Arrowhead says:

  • Cloud Engineering: Utilize Azure services to build and optimize cloud-based backend components and make use of monitoring tools to track live performance.

Our tech stack

  • NET/C#, Docker, Kubernetes/AKS, Azure, SQL Server, CosmosDB, Redis, Grafana, Terraform

Early days playercount woes were before they added more nodes to their solution.

CEO said during the early day playercount woes:

It’s not a matter of money or buying more servers. It’s a matter of labour. We need to optimise the backend code. We are hitting some real limits.

They can't just fire the people maintaining their solution either but that's also baby bucks

A good back-end engineer is at least 100k. And a just-keep-the-lights-on crew is probably 3-4 of them.

FWIW: I also work in IT, on an IoT system that you might also assume has a “nonexistent” server cost. (I assure you, the cost exists.) I also used to work in game dev.

That said: Yeah, protesting by playing the game is a severely misguided notion.

kibiz0r ,

but it comes at the cost of short term agility

Often long-term agility, as well.

Big teams are faster on straightaways. Small teams go through the corners better. Upgrading from a go-kart to a dragster may just send your project 200mph into a wall. Sometimes a go-kart is really what you need.

kibiz0r ,

My Subaru has a similar setup, and there’s a feature for changing the max height of the tailgate. You might wanna see if the same thing exists for you.

kibiz0r ,

A frunking typo

kibiz0r ,

Apple really skewed our idea of lifespans for electronics, didn’t they?

Apple's a weird pick for this.

If you're talking desktop/laptop hardware, I had a 2009 MBP running just fine as a personal server until a couple of years ago and would probably still be doing it except the battery turned into a spicy pillow and I wanted more performance anyway. And I've got a 2016 that's going strong as a daily driver for personal projects.

If you're talking phones, that's even weirder. It's pretty well known that Android users change phones more frequently. Which makes sense, cuz Android phones tend to get stuck on old major versions and stop getting security patches.

For instance if you got an iPhone 5s in 2013, running iOS 7, you could still be using that today on iOS 12, which received security patches as recently as 2023.

If you got a Galaxy S4 in 2013, you could update from Android 4 to 5, which stopped receiving security patches in 2017.

kibiz0r ,

Who do they think will be using the AI?

AI threatens to harm a lot about programming, but not the existence/necessity of programmers.

Particularly, AI may starve the development of open source libraries. Which, ironically, will probably increase the need for employed programmers as companies accrue giant piles of shoddy in-house code that needs maintaining.

kibiz0r ,

The amount of code I’ve seen copy-pasted from StackOverflow to do things like “group an array by key XYZ”, “dispatch requests in parallel with limit”, etc. when the dev should’ve known there were libs to help with these common tasks makes me think those devs will just use Copilot instead of SO, and do it way more often.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • kbinchat
  • All magazines