just_another_person
@just_another_person@lemmy.world
- Comment on An upcoming California law requires operating system providers to enforce basic mandatory age verification 1 day ago:
Solid point on the “single purpose” nature of some devices, but that’s also the legalese going to work here in that “Depends what the meaning of IS, is” 🤣
Making laws with vague definitions will get challenged, as you point out.
- Comment on OpenAI strikes a deal with the Defense Department to deploy its AI models 2 days ago:
Tell me more
- Comment on OpenAI strikes a deal with the Defense Department to deploy its AI models 2 days ago:
WHAT IN THE ACTUAL FUCK IS HAPPENING:opb.org/…/openais-sam-altman-weighs-in-on-pentago…
- Comment on Not good if this is a sign of things to come for anything else. 2 days ago:
These links never work
- Comment on An upcoming California law requires operating system providers to enforce basic mandatory age verification 2 days ago:
Not a lawyer, but deeply involved in the law from the tech side for many years at various deeper levels from the engineering side and bridge to product and so forth.
It doesn’t need to be unconstitutional to be struck down as the constitution doesn’t cover all laws, especially not state and local laws. All you need to do is prove that the language or intent of the law is either:
- impossible to enforce (ex: software processes cannot be patented or controlled/patrolled)
- the language is too broad (ex: What is an OS exactly?)
- it violates a prexisting law or creates a verifiable conundrum (ex: this would violate California’s own data privacy laws)
- it creates an undue tax or burden on existing technology (ex: devices out in the wild can’t be retrofitted to comply, which sort of fits with #1)
- it DOES actually violate a constitutional right (ex: 4th amendment)
Being on my side of things, the legal team would most likely start a case with something like “So you say the OS needs to be locked with age verification. Does that mean every TV, router, public computer, tablet…blah blah blah”, so it’s very likely to get tossed on #1 quite easily because these folks have no idea what an OS actually is, and that every piece of technology you interact with on a daily basis has an OS. The lack of specificity alone would get this tossed in a heartbeat.
If that failed, they’d argue there is no way to police or enforce this law because sites who rely on this rule existing are putting themselves in legal jeopardy by simply allowing any traffic from California to access their services. What if someone from another state or country is in California and wants to watch porn in their hotel, or play a game with friends on Discord? Police have zero right to verify that any device entering California complies with the law, so the provider of the service would have to be on the hook to do the verification, which means they would just block any device from California that doesn’t meet whatever flag is sent to say it safe. THEN you have the infrastructure that is required to ensure those devices…blah blah blah.
It’s just a stupid idea by dumbass technically illiterate people. It won’t go anywhere.
As soon as these idiots figure out what an OS is, this is dead in the water because of the above.
- Comment on An upcoming California law requires operating system providers to enforce basic mandatory age verification 2 days ago:
This will immediately get struck down in court even if it passes, though everyone should make their voices heard in saying this is complete nonsense.
Yet another case of antiquated politicians not understanding technology whatsoever.
- Comment on MSI's $80 AMD motherboards with DDR4 support swoop in to rescue gamers amid the global RAM crisis 3 days ago:
That’s why I said “as much”. Since DDR5 went crazy, people started buying DDR4, which is driving the price up, but still only at a 2x increase vs 5x for DDR5.
Hence, the release of this motherboard.
- Comment on MSI's $80 AMD motherboards with DDR4 support swoop in to rescue gamers amid the global RAM crisis 3 days ago:
DDR4 isn’t part of the memory shortage
- Comment on what is this 5 days ago:
- Comment on what is this 5 days ago:
It’s a hash of some sort. No idea what it’s for.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hash_functions
You have a link to one?
- Comment on FreeBSD doesn't have Wi-Fi driver for my old MacBook. AI build one for me 6 days ago:
No
- Comment on If America and Mexico did an all our "WAR" against the cartels look like? 6 days ago:
So…things have been written about this. The biggest issue in Mexico is the space between cities.
You move into one area and clear it out, anyone left leaves to join others in some other places and then you have to move the police force to wherever the new outbreak starts.
It’s Guerilla Warfare. It’s not impossible to stop with force, but it takes a long time. The fastest way to stop the Cartels is by Supply Suffocation, either by product, or by banking.
The trick here is that Cartels know this, and regularly rely on the law to prevent seizures of funds, and even recently have become money laundering operations for people wanting to traffic Chinese currency, so they are FLUSH with cash.
So in this specific case, it’s like fighting the Mafia. You can greatly reduce their operations by taking out the leaders, seizure of asset or product, and removing enforcers in their organizations, but you’ll always be left with a small contingent that will continue operating in some capacity.
The thing with Mexican Cartels is that they’ve strong armed themselves into legitimate businesses like agriculture (avocados are a big one), and it’s hard to find legal ways to prove that X business is funded by a Cartels when they are already laundering money. It could look like it comes from anywhere.
It’s a cat and mouse game until the larger population feels empowered enough to report members, or fight back themselves.
- Comment on The creator of systemd wants your entire system validated by SecureBoot 1 week ago:
Again…read what the guy is saying. You can’t do something like this without BOTH the OSS community AND a company to back it up. It’s just not possible for legal reasons, financial reasons, and so on. The aim is to replace the existing bullshit Microsoft created, and make an open standard that is backed by a presence that keeps it there. Not something you can just fund and keep moving in a git repo alone.
- Comment on The creator of systemd wants your entire system validated by SecureBoot 1 week ago:
🤣
There’s zero corporate about it. You’re actually in denial and possibly crazy. My God.
- Comment on The creator of systemd wants your entire system validated by SecureBoot 1 week ago:
How do you address mail to your bunker? Is there e like…a sublevel addition or something?
- Comment on The creator of systemd wants your entire system validated by SecureBoot 1 week ago:
- How is systemd somehow taking away freedoms at the behest of corporations who asked such a thing?
- UEFI is an open standard, buddy. Microsoft is the only player fucking that up
- "Trusted Computing" has existed in the very hardware you own and run for almost 30 years now. Literally nobody but cellphone makers use it in the way you describe. Seems you’re still using it though, so nobody seems to have made the apocalyptic decisions that bring your fearful future to bear.
- A “Trusted Computing” framework - and this is how I know you don’t understand any of this - is only present. It takes software to interact with it to “take your freedoms away” as you put it. It’s just sitting there otherwise. Nobody even needs to interact with it. You’re so out of touch with this that you’re angry at the wrong side of it, and you don’t even know it.
- “…we just provide the tools…”. MY GOD. Where do I even start with this? I can name about a hundred different FOSS tools that break encryption. You mad at the people who made the FOSS encryption tools, or the ones who the FOSS tools to decrypt it?
- The only people who want this are people make and produce hardware platforms that ship out into the world so they can ensure they are T2B secure. It seems you don’t know much about security, so I’ll let you in a little secret…(If it claims to be secure, it means there are hardware controls in place)
- Comment on The creator of systemd wants your entire system validated by SecureBoot 1 week ago:
Uhhhh…it’s open. Didn’t know anyone needed precautionary blocks in place or permission.
What in the actual hell is happening in here. Who made you so fearful of everyone? Did somebody hurt you? WHO DID IT???
- Comment on The creator of systemd wants your entire system validated by SecureBoot 1 week ago:
First, yes, he’s correct in talking about the SOFTWARE side of that, so if your anger is with this dude, you better just outlaw software, because anyone can choose to NOT do these things. That’s the entire point of open source. Make stupid decisions, and you have zero following.
Second, let me finish his thought for you:
But we will never enforce using any of these features in systemd itself. It will always be up to the distro to enable and configure the system to become an immutable monolith. And I certainly don’t think distributions like Fedora or Debian will ever go in that direction.
We don’t really have any control over what Microsoft decides to do with Secure Boot. If they decide at one point to make Secure Boot reject any Linux distribution and hardware vendors prevent enrolling user owned keys, we’re in just as much trouble as everyone else running Linux will be.
- Comment on The creator of systemd wants your entire system validated by SecureBoot 1 week ago:
Again, no it here complaining even read the damn article, and has no idea what their up in arms about.
I hope you’re so committed to this anger that you’re destroying your motherboard RIGHT NOW 🤣
- Comment on The creator of systemd wants your entire system validated by SecureBoot 1 week ago:
Right, so because of your limited knowledge and understanding of what the actual needs of an entire industry are, it’s all snake oil. Cool.
Meanwhile I’d just love a way to box up a custom machine, use something what he’s building, ship it to site, and have it run without issue and have some piece of mind a competitor didn’t try to gank the data over USB, or bypass the identity of the motherboard that SHOULD have boot blocks in place, or maybe someone just rips the SSD right out of it and tries to boot it elsewhere.
Fuck the rest of ALL that and the practical needs of security experts and system builders because YOU are worried that it somehow magically it’s used for all kinds of other nefarious things.
Cool. Cool.
- Comment on The creator of systemd wants your entire system validated by SecureBoot 1 week ago:
Seems like more of a “you” problem for not understanding the problem or solutions being discussed. Seems like maybe you probably just shouldn’t have commented at all, huh?
- Comment on The creator of systemd wants your entire system validated by SecureBoot 1 week ago:
Not even how that works FFS. You’re not the target audience here.
Y’all really need to start reading more about things before jumping to ridiculously uninformed conclusions and making comments. My gosh.
- Comment on The creator of systemd wants your entire system validated by SecureBoot 1 week ago:
Bruh…that’s not even the point of the company or what he’s talking about. You’re being paranoid, first off.
Second, you want secure devices? You can’t have that right now with Linux very easily. There is no chain of trust coming from the hardware aside from TPM, which is kind of a joke. This guy wants to make a standard way of certifying a chain of trust which would allow an ecosystem of devices to maintain some semblance of trust amongst itself and other devices. This would make things like networks, edge devices, forward deployed hardware, and running sensitive data in less than secure locations more secure.
Last, if you’re going to be paranoid, at least educate yourself on the subject. Not a single person who is even vaguely familiar with what this entails is thinking “Oh they’re going to lock all our devices rawrawrawr”. That’s just ridiculous. That could happen now, but…you seeing that out in the components world anywhere? Absolutely not. Because it’s no desirable, and that’s NOT WHAT HES EVEN TALKING ABOUT.
🤦
- Comment on The creator of systemd wants your entire system validated by SecureBoot 1 week ago:
That would be beneficial to users as well. I’m not understanding the downside here.
- Comment on The creator of systemd wants your entire system validated by SecureBoot 1 week ago:
Uhhhh…wha?
This would be a big deal for hardware manufacturers or product manufacturers in securing their devices. Only a tiny, tiny fraction of Linux users are just desktop jockeys.
- Comment on Developer claims to have built an autonomous AI system that can earn money, pay for its own computing, improve its tools, and even copy itself without human approval 1 week ago:
- Comment on Global YouTube outage sees video platform homepage go dark 1 week ago:
Oh no…anyway
- Comment on Tesla rolls first steering wheel-less Cybercab unit off the line before solving autonomy 1 week ago:
👏👏👏💩💩💩💩💩
- Comment on Switch 2 price, PS6 release could be impacted by memory shortage 1 week ago:
Any company who gets up and running focusing solely on consumer facing memory supply is going to make a fucking mint. There are only a few who could manage to do so right now, and they are unfortunately not likely to do so.
- Comment on Snagged a 2005 Philips TV for free! 1 week ago:
Look into recapping that set. Can probably improve the picture quite a bit pretty cheaply.
