That they are trying to disarm their political adversaries seems like evidence. Afaik the situation so far is, the people they are detaining can mostly expect to survive. If it progresses beyond that, that’s when vulnerable groups still having guns gets more relevant, because the likelihood of a shootout is going to affect the scalability of mass arrests, or of the viability of extrajudicial killings by groups the government refuses to police.
It would maybe be safer on a custom OS because less malware would target it, but exploits can still exist, at this point I’d say you also should really be using a dedicated device for crypto wallet stuff if you have more than small amounts, whether that’s a purpose built hardware wallet, an old phone you reset and have only the wallet app on, etc.
That’s just the remote control part.
promises of a free TradingView Premium app for Android. Instead of delivering legitimate software, the ads drop a highly advanced crypto-stealing trojan — an evolved version of the Brokewell malware.
From another source, that works in part by exploiting “accessibility service permissions”:
Like other recent Android malware families of its kind, Brokewell is capable of getting around restrictions imposed by Google that prevent sideloaded apps from requesting accessibility service permissions.
…
This includes displaying overlay screens on top of targeted apps to pilfer user credentials. It can also steal cookies by launching a WebView and loading the legitimate website, after which the session cookies are intercepted and transmitted to an actor-controlled server.
Cool style of tutorial where it points out places it’s necessary to do something different from the readme instructions
That’s honestly fucked up and bizarre, why would they even do that? I can’t imagine it saves them any resources or bandwidth, and it doesn’t make sense that people would be more interested in watching videos with weird AI glitches the video creators didn’t intend.
This is about taxes funding the FAA, and the implied conclusion of the video isn’t that these taxes should be removed, but that they should be weighted more heavily towards private flights for the sake of fairness.
I am skeptical that most people saying this type of shit really have no concept of the US having freedom of religion and separation of church and state as founding values. They just believe in the rightness of propaganda and catchy ideological phrases above actual truth and reality, because they’ve been conditioned to think that way.
Yeah, I estimated the number of websites on that list and it’s around 100k
There was pushshift, but it’s locked down since the API thing, there’s pullpush.io, but that seems down atm. Also there is reveddit. I think most or all of these do not store content that has been deleted by the user though.
Any ideas for that? My main thought is to further develop technology for the anonymous web and get people using it, although probably some form of overtly political activism is also needed
If these types of laws keep coming there might be a lot of legal liability for running instances of things
It sounds like what they want to do is write an essay from extensive personal experience (presumably the topic of the essay is being critical of the education system), but since that isn’t accepted they have to find articles about the same topic. IMO there is nothing wrong with writing an essay based on personal experience.
One thing I dislike about streamers is when you can tell they are using their voice in a “hey you should take me seriously, I am obviously right” kind of tone, and are good at that, but the actual words are just repeating a common opinion and devoid of much any substance or argument. Like they think adjusting the way they say something makes them more right.
When I open my task manager I see flatpak-session-helper near the top of the list for ram usage and am suspicious
What you confuse here is doing something that can benefit from applying logical thinking with doing science.
I’m not confusing that. Effective programming requires and consists of small scale application of the scientific method to the systems you work with.
the argument has become “but it seems to be thinking to me”
I wasn’t making that argument so I don’t know what you’re getting at with this. For the purposes of this discussion I think it doesn’t matter at all how it was written or whether what wrote it is truly intelligent, the important thing is the code that is the end result, whether it does what it is intended to and nothing harmful, and whether the programmer working with it is able to accurately determine if it does what it is intended to.
The central point of it is that, by the very nature of LKMs to produce statistically plausible output, self-experimenting with them subjects one to very strong psychological biases because of the Barnum effect and therefore it is, first, not even possible to assess their usefulness for programming by self-exoerimentation(!) , and second, it is even harmful because these effects lead to self-reinforcing and harmful beliefs.
I feel like “not even possible to assess their usefulness for programming by self-exoerimentation(!)” is necessarily a claim that reading and testing code is something no one can do, which is absurd. If the output is often correct, then the means of creating it is likely useful, and you can tell if the output is correct by evaluating it in the same way you evaluate any computer program, without needing to directly evaluate the LLM itself. It should be obvious that this is a possible thing to do. Saying not to do it seems kind of like some “don’t look up” stuff.
Are you saying that it is not possible to use scientific methods to systematically and objectively compare programming tools and methods?
No, I’m saying the opposite, and I’m offended at what the author seems to be suggesting, that this should only be attempted by academics, and that programmers should only defer to them and refrain from attempting this to inform their own work and what tools will be useful to them. An absolutely insane idea given that the task of systematic evaluation and seeking greater objectivity is at the core of what programmers do. A programmer should obviously be using their experience writing and testing both typing systems to decide which is right for their project, they should not assume they are incapable of objective judgment and defer their thinking to computer science researchers who don’t directly deal with the same things they do and aren’t considering the same questions.
This was given as an example of someone falling for manipulative trickery:
A recent example was an experiment by a CloudFlare engineer at using an “AI agent” to build an auth library from scratch.
From the project repository page:
I was an AI skeptic. I thought LLMs were glorified Markov chain generators that didn’t actually understand code and couldn’t produce anything novel. I started this project on a lark, fully expecting the AI to produce terrible code for me to laugh at. And then, uh… the code actually looked pretty good. Not perfect, but I just told the AI to fix things, and it did. I was shocked.
But understanding and testing code is not (necessarily) guesswork. There is no reason to assume this person is incapable of it, and no reason to justify the idea that it should never be attempted by ordinary programmers when that is the main task of programming.
The problem, though, with responding to blog posts like that, as I did here (unfortunately), is that they aren’t made to debate or arrive at a truth, but to reinforce belief. The author is simultaneously putting himself on the record as having hardline opinions and putting himself in the position of having to defend them. Both are very effective at reinforcing those beliefs.
A very useful question to ask yourself when reading anything (fiction, non-fiction, blogs, books, whatever) is “what does the author want to believe is true?”
Because a lot of writing is just as much about the author convincing themselves as it is about them addressing the reader. …
There is no winning in a debate with somebody who is deliberately not paying attention.
This is all also a great argument against the many articles claiming that LLMs are useless for coding, in which the authors all seem to have a very strong bias. I can agree that it’s a very good idea to distrust what people are saying about how programming should be done, including mistrusting claims about how AI can and should be used for it.
We need science #
Our only recourse as a field is the same as with naturopathy: scientific studies by impartial researchers. That takes time, which means we have a responsibility to hold off as research plays out
This on the other hand is pure bullshit. Writing code is itself a process of scientific exploration; you think about what will happen, and then you test it, from different angles, to confirm or falsify your assumptions. The author seems to be saying that both evaluating correctness of LLM output and the use of Typescript is comparable to falling for homeopathy by misattributing the cause of recovering from illness. The idea that programmers should not use their own judgment or do their own experimentation, that they have no way of telling if code works or is good, to me seems like a wholesale rejection of programming as a craft. If someone is avoiding self experimentation as suggested I don’t know how they can even say that programming is something they do.
What is the reason to make one of these instead of wearing a regular respirator? They mention N95 masks being less comfortable, but this thing looks like the part that straps to your face is basically the same as a respirator. Just instead of filters you have to draw air through there’s a fan, but why do you need the fan?
Sure, if you think to do so before your computer doesn’t work
This was what should have been a private conversation though, not public.