🆕 blog! “The limits of General Purpose Computation”
Should my bank be able to block me from using their Android app, just because my phone is rooted? I'm reluctantly coming to the conclusion that... yeah, it's fair that they get to decide their own risk tolerance. Sage of the Internet, and general Sooth Sayer, Cory Doctorow once gave an impassioned…
@Edent, I guess you know all this, but think it's interesting for others in the discussion.
There are two levels here:
your device manufacturer does not allow installation of alternative OSs in a safe manner. Others do allow relocking the bootloader and don't need root access.
the banking app does not allow unlocked bootloader or rooted devices.
I'd argue that (2) is reasonable, and (1) is the problem that restricts our freedom to use the device as we want. Locking the bootloader is, like Secure Boot on PCs, not a problem per se, only if the only authorisation of the boot chain is in the hands of the manufacturer.
There are not many manufacturers that allow relocking bootloaders, though. Which is why most alternative Android devices run insecurely (I would not want to run such a device, and definitely not want my patents in law running one).
Ironically, one of the best choices, if one wants to run an alternative (de-Googled) OS, are Google's own Pixel phones.
I run a Fairphone 5, which is pretty open as well (I run IodeOS) and all banking apps work.
I remember buying a BOOK (as in printed on paper) directory of the internet in my university book store (was that published by Netscape? Anybody old enough to remember?)
Based on my experience talking to women who travel alone, there definitely is reason. Not a single one of them did not have stories to tell about sexual harassment or worse.
The problem we, as men, have, is that these women don't usually talk to us* about it**. So our perception must be biased.
BTW, most of these stories I heard won't show up on any statistic.
*not sure why they talked to me about it. Must be because I am more like a bear.
**maybe because they don't care to be mansplained or victim-blamed.
I feel the same way about AI that I did about crypto when it started becoming a thing:
• All of the moral practices that make it possible are fucked beyond repair.
• It’s spawning some of the worst companies, and enriching some of the worst billionaires in the world.
• While there are some genuinely useful, practical applications for it, there are so few of them, and they have had so little positive impact so far, that it doesn’t even seem like it’s going to be worth it anytime soon.
True, but all the AI models in cancer, climate, ... research are fundamentally different from the ChatGPT type AI that is hyped at the moment. And the tech bros are less interested in those useful forms it seems.
I'd argue that it is part of the unethical practice, though, to conflate the two and attempt to disarm any criticism of the ChatGPT type AI pointing at AI use in cancer and medical research.
And it it indeed a shame if those uses get a bad reputation as a fallout from all the everyday AI hype.
xz backdoor. Only affects unstable builds *
Uninitiated: LINUX IS DOOMED FOREVER!!! FOSS IS DEAD!!!
Old Sys Admins: This is why unstable builds exist. To catch these things. This is the system in place doing it's fucking job :)
Using Markdown to create slides? Why not? With presenter notes and a presenter view with preview of the next slide? Sure! https://marp.app has you covered.
The scientific method is not a debate between opposing theories. The scientific method is the process of falsifying and verifying claims or hypotheses. When a hypothesis is confirmed by unwavering, repeatable reprocibility, only then does it become a theory. And a theory is NOT an established scientific fact. A theory is a 'best explanation' for reproducible results based upon observed facts.
When anyone gives a unfalsifiable claim that cannot be challenged based upon opinion or 'consensus' this is not science. It is religion.
When anyone tells you to, 'trust the science' or 'the scientific consensus' that person is proselyting a religion and is NOT a scientist but rather is a cultist. There is no such thing as, 'consensus' in actual science. Science is not a democracy or a social club where popular opinion determines the truth or falsity of a claim. Science is a long established method of inquiry and has nothing to do with group think, but is diametrically opposed to group think and cultism.
Most profiles and accounts on social media that mention, 'science' wouldn't know the scientific method if it bit them on the nose. No real scientist ever 'trusts the science' but rather verifies or falsifies every claim by attempting to repeat the claimed results.
Most people also don't know the differences between theory, hypothesis, conjecture, claim, fact, and speculation. When you see the word, 'science' on the Internet, always assume it is delusional bullshit until proven otherwise, because most probably it is.
I have witnessed a book with all its code examples all written in a font WITH SERIF !!!
I clearly feel the sense, I mean the eternal condemnation that I will never open this book again
Or if I do it will be only so as to check that my a priori is good: that this is a bad book with bad advices for bad programmers who do not know how to choose their good code-programming font
"Imagine easily replacing batteries and other components yourself, extending the phone’s lifespan without needing specialized technical knowledge. This, coupled with seven years of updates, would truly be a game-changer."
What we need is innovation in order to create a phone where you can remove the battery. This would be true innovation: doing something thought impossible, doing something that's never been done before. What a challenge!