cypherpunks
@cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
- Comment on Sexual Kinks 1 week ago:
- Comment on 🍃 🐑 2 weeks ago:
they aren’t the only animal that does it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptoplasty#Animals
- Comment on Mayonnaise is not a dressing 1 month ago:
In some places it is:
- Comment on I love children's sense of humour 1 month ago:
would this text land differently if “public school” were replaced with “school”? 🤔
- Comment on This man is a parody of himself 1 month ago:
see it’s conciser?
- Comment on This researcher wants to replace your brain, little by little. The US government just hired a researcher who thinks we can beat aging with fresh cloned bodies and brain updates. 1 month ago:
Like… okay… I know this is me in the new brain, I’ll shut down the other one.
the other one: i’m pretty sure you’ve got it backwards, pal
- Comment on Phonebooks 1 month ago:
- Comment on AI bots now beat 100% of those traffic-image CAPTCHAs 1 month ago:
I was referring to the “This is actually a good sign for self driving” part of their comment.
The captcha circumvention arms race has been going on for over two decades, and every new type of captcha has and will continue to be broken as soon as it’s widely deployed enough that someone is motivated to spend the time to.
So, the notion that an academic paper about breaking the current generation of traffic sign captchas (something which the solving industry has been doing for years with a pretty high success rate already) is “good news” for autonomous vehicles is… well, hopefully a joke.
- Comment on AI bots now beat 100% of those traffic-image CAPTCHAs 1 month ago:
i hope you’re joking. please, tell me you’re joking?
- Comment on How do I make my own internet? 1 month ago:
You can use this design, but if you want it to accommodate 3½-inch disks you’ll need to scale it down to two thirds of its specified size before printing it.
- Comment on How do I make my own internet? 1 month ago:
Does your computer have a floppy drive? You might be able to find a copy of this at a secondhand store:
- Submitted 1 month ago to technology@lemmy.world | 6 comments
- Comment on The reason we don’t see exploding battery attacks more often is not because it’s technically hard, it’s because the erosion of public trust in everyday things isn’t worth it. 1 month ago:
I wish we’d stop calling them “exploding batteries”. The battery isn’t the explosive, it’s the explosives that were hidden in the device.
Do you want to stop calling them exploding pagers too? How about other exploding things? And what should en.wikipedia.org/…/2024_Lebanon_pager_explosions be renamed to? Maybe 2024 Lebanon explosions of explosives inside of pagers? 🙄
- Comment on The reason we don’t see exploding battery attacks more often is not because it’s technically hard, it’s because the erosion of public trust in everyday things isn’t worth it. 1 month ago:
Right, so why are you editorializing the title to say something that the article in fact does not say?
The title is a copy+paste of the first sentence of the third paragraph, and it is not misleading unless you infer “exploding batteries” to mean “exploding unmodified batteries”. But, the way the English language works, when you put explosives inside an XYZ, or do something else which causes an XYZ to explode, it becomes an “exploding XYZ”. For example:
- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploding_animal
- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploding_cigar
- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploding_pagers
- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploding_trousers
- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploding_watermelon
- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploding_whale
The fact that bombs are explosive is not revolutionary or all that interesting.
That fact also is not what the article is about.
- Comment on The reason we don’t see exploding battery attacks more often is not because it’s technically hard, it’s because the erosion of public trust in everyday things isn’t worth it. 1 month ago:
sometimes a cigar is just a cigar
- Comment on The reason we don’t see exploding battery attacks more often is not because it’s technically hard, it’s because the erosion of public trust in everyday things isn’t worth it. 1 month ago:
(@Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee:) Just to be clear, the pager thing wasn’t exploding batteries, they had apparently been modified at the production level to have explosives in them, which could be triggered by the pager system itself.
(me:) Did you read the article? It sounds like you didn’t.
(you:) The article literally talks about inserting an explosive layer inside the battery at production. Just like the comment said.
I am really curious: can you tell me, do you actually think the first commenter in fact read the article and was agreeing with its suggestion that the batteries could have been manufactured with explosives inside of them?
(you): It isn’t “any batteries can explode”.
Nobody claimed that, but in retrospect I guess I can see how, read alone, the pull quote I selected from the article to be the title of this post could be interpreted that way.
- Comment on The reason we don’t see exploding battery attacks more often is not because it’s technically hard, it’s because the erosion of public trust in everyday things isn’t worth it. 1 month ago:
Of course not, what did you expect?
I encourage you to, it’s pretty interesting.
- Comment on The reason we don’t see exploding battery attacks more often is not because it’s technically hard, it’s because the erosion of public trust in everyday things isn’t worth it. 1 month ago:
i encourage you to re-read the original comment in this thread after reading the article 😂
- Comment on The reason we don’t see exploding battery attacks more often is not because it’s technically hard, it’s because the erosion of public trust in everyday things isn’t worth it. 1 month ago:
You are inferring what someone meant, and then applying some super pedantic reasoning.
I think I am inferring correctly, especially since the person you’re talking about replied “of course not” to my question about if they read the article.
- Comment on The reason we don’t see exploding battery attacks more often is not because it’s technically hard, it’s because the erosion of public trust in everyday things isn’t worth it. 1 month ago:
Since apparently many people aren’t reading the article: It is about how cheap it actually is (eg $15,000) to buy a complete production line to be able to manufacture batteries with a layer of nearly-undetectable explosives inside of them, which can be triggered by off-the-shelf devices with only their firmware modified.
- Comment on The reason we don’t see exploding battery attacks more often is not because it’s technically hard, it’s because the erosion of public trust in everyday things isn’t worth it. 1 month ago:
Just to be clear, the pager thing wasn’t exploding batteries, they had apparently been modified at the production level to have explosives in them, which could be triggered by the pager system itself.
What? 🤦 The comment I replied to said:
Just to be clear, the pager thing wasn’t exploding batteries, they had apparently been modified at the production level to have explosives in them, which could be triggered by the pager system itself.
It seems clear that “they had apparently been modified at the production level” is referring to the pagers, rather than their batteries. But the article is explaining how it could have been that the batteries were the part of the pager that had the explosives (in which case it was the battery that was exploding).
- Comment on The reason we don’t see exploding battery attacks more often is not because it’s technically hard, it’s because the erosion of public trust in everyday things isn’t worth it. 1 month ago:
Did you read the article? It sounds like you didn’t.
- Comment on The reason we don’t see exploding battery attacks more often is not because it’s technically hard, it’s because the erosion of public trust in everyday things isn’t worth it. 1 month ago:
Did you read the article? It sounds like you didn’t.
- The reason we don’t see exploding battery attacks more often is not because it’s technically hard, it’s because the erosion of public trust in everyday things isn’t worth it.www.bunniestudios.com ↗Submitted 1 month ago to technology@lemmy.world | 85 comments
- Comment on Why isn't everything mouldy? 2 months ago:
also: The Oyster was an erotic magazine published in London in 1883
- Comment on "REM sleep is the next AI" 2 months ago:
That label is there because I’m subscribed to XBlock Screenshot Labeller and it misclassified this image. (You can find here and here more info about how labelers in ATP work…)
- Comment on "REM sleep is the next AI" 2 months ago:
i hope you’re joking but if you’re not i assume you live in the bay area? if you want to go to their pitch tonight, here’s its eventbrite.
- Submitted 2 months ago to technology@lemmy.world | 85 comments
- Comment on Real Facebook ad that doubles as a god-tier shitpost 3 months ago:
It’s amazing how so many people here are completely oblivious to sarcasm.
from this commercial, apparently it’s a joke but also a real product from Daily Wire 😬
- Comment on AI-powered network of Russia-based websites masquerading as local American newspapers is pumping out fake stories targeting the US election, investigation finds 4 months ago:
wikipedia articles about him have been deleted twice:
