I don't think people should post the unfiltered output of an LLM as if it has value. If a question in a comment has a single correct answer that is so easily discoverable, I might downvote the comment instead.
I'm not sure making a rule would be helpful though, as I think people would ignore it and just not label the source of their comment. I'd like to be wrong about that.
I'm still having good results with root, Magisk, and Play Integrity Fix. That does involve some knowledge and effort though, so what I point others to is Mullvad DNS, which is free: https://mullvad.net/en/help/dns-over-https-and-dns-over-tls
Don't forget to give apps that fuck with you in the name of security 1-star reviews!
True, but it doesn't require an account, and is free for unlimited use. Not having to sign up for anything is a plus when I'm recommending things to others.
It's really hard to come up with a product name as good as "iPhone". Simple does not mean easy.
Unless they're writing a phone review, nobody ever says things like "I took a picture with my Galaxy", or "I edited the video on my Pixel", but substitute "iPhone" and they sound normal.
It also hasn't become generic. Nobody calls another brand of phone an "iPhone" unless they actually mistook it for one.
The thing is they are the best e-scooters provider in town. They have fantastic support, few times agreed to my feature requests. They have very forgiving policy for when you forgot to lock the scooter and so on. I really believe that if I messaged them off season (when they work on the app, like now in winter), and suggested changing the way they attest phones, they would consider using the attestation that GOS can pass.
I think you're not asking for enough here. A scooter rental app does not need to attest phones. It doesn't even have a bad excuse for wanting to attest phones since payment information is surely stored server-side and it would be surprising if the scooters didn't have their own network connections and GPS trackers.
They kind of do - you can have bad actors messing with scooters. Myself I used GPS spoofer once to park out of the allowed zone (just a few meters, for lulz).
There can be people messing with the system, and limiting the OSes that can access your network looks like low hanging fruit. Just like Riot (League of Legends) banned Linux users to "solve" botters. But like with botters, there are better alternatives that don't exclude legitimate users.
Most of the larger scooter companies don't do it, so it seems unlikely operating such a system requires trying to get around the first rule of network security.
I feel like we (that is anyone nerdy enough to post on HN) have been far too patient with people who are choosing to wage a war on general-purpose computing, and it's past time to push back harder.
GPL v3 requires that if updates by the manufacturer are possible, the device owner is given the necessary keys and instructions to install modified versions. It is not required if the software is installed to ROM that cannot be updated by anyone.
> Basically, if I'm reading it correctly, they have to give you the source code if you ask for it, but they don't have to tell you that you can ask.
I think the bigger picture is more subtle than that. You, the buyer do not have a cause of action if they fail to tell you that you can ask.
They would, however be in violation of copyright if they don't tell buyers that they are entitled to ask for a copy of the source code because the license requires that they do so, and nothing else gives them permission to distributed the covered software. Any relevant copyright holder would have a cause of action in that case, but the SFC is not a copyright holder in this case.
I dont remember if we ever told our customers that they could ask for our code for one of the products a former employer made, but I do recall one customer did eventually ask for it, and we obliged. I don't know much of the details as to why they wanted it. Just know it was a GPL licensed project. Heck I think we even gave them pieces that were not even GPL based.
That's what's interesting. You probably had to give code that wasn't itself licensed as GPL because that code was covered by the terms of the GPL license (through linking, i presume). That's the entire purpose of GPL! It makes-free any code that directly touches GPL code. Ya know, like Midas and gold.
That's why it's such a powerful force for software freedom if the terms hold up.
As far as I know, the effect of linking to GPL code hasn't actually been tested in court.
The license is intended to impose obligations in the case of linking, but dynamic linking does not make a copy of the library at build time; it just generates enough metadata for the program to call the library. One might reasonably argue that no derivative work is created by dynamic linking, or that it is only created when the end user runs it.
EULAs are enforceable because the program is copied into RAM at runtime (a bad precedent, I think), but the GPL is not a EULA and only imposes requirements on distributors, not end users.
> he effect of linking to GPL code hasn't actually been tested in court.
the intent of the GPL family of LICENSE is clear. There certainly will be efforts to diminish its reach by motivated parties. Tests in US courts are certainly a function of the depth of the pockets of litigants, no?
I'm not even trying to address realities like the potential unfairness of the courts here. I'm saying it would be very reasonable to conclude that linking isn't copying and a copyright license isn't required to do it.
Nah not the code in question it was a bunch of completely different subprojects in different languages, but given that the end product was massive I think they wanted to be sure they could use it. Its possible they wanted to evaluate the product.
Nearly anything is allowed for experimental amateur-built aircraft like the one in this incident. Unapproved modifications to certified aircraft are forbidden in most parts of the world.
I used to view them with disdain - a clearly obsolete design GM kept using because they're cheap or lazy or some such.
I no longer hold that view. GM's pushrod V8s are considerably smaller than their competition, and lightweight relative to their displacement, for which there is famously no replacement.
Ok, stick a huge turbo on a 100cc engine and power my 1 ton pickup please. Id like it to feel quick in traffic but also tow a few thousand lbs uphill without really noticing it.
No one buys a 1-ton to feel quick in traffic. A few thousand lbs going uphill can be easily done with a 1/2 ton, and the majority of them are now turbocharged.
Forced Induction has made its way tho. Not all, but a lot of modern turbo engines are great in all three aspects of reliability, performance, and efficiency.
I can see turbo'ed PHEV being the solution to heavy-duty use cases one day. Pretty stoked for the Ramcharger.
I think the most stringent types of Windows anti-cheat rely on remote attestation of the operating system. It's theoretically possible to design a Linux-based OS that supports such a capability, but the sort of people who choose Linux are unlikely to accept a third party having the final say over their computer.
I, for one am disappointed that anyone has accepted it. Once it's widespread, service providers can demand it, as we're seeing with mobile banking apps and game anticheat.
I also strongly dislike requiring remote attestation for any kind of software I want to run. But what I also dislike is cheaters in my online games and I genuinely do not have a better suggestion on what to do.
Personally, I run Windows purely for gaming and don't let it near any important data. For the latter, I boot into Linux with separately encrypted disks.
>But what I also dislike is cheaters in my online games and I genuinely do not have a better suggestion on what to do.
You can't suggest "run online games as close-knit social groups, with social exclusion punishments for cheaters", which is how most online games used to be run. How old are you?
Game vendors used to be happy letting us host and run our own multiplayer games, until they realised they could get more money out of us -- "battle passes", microtransactions, ability to forcibly turn off multiplayer of older game when newer remake comes out -- and now they've made themselves a mandatory part of your online experience. You have to use their matchmaking and their servers. So now it's down to them to solve the problem of cheaters, enabled by their centralised matchmaking... and their only solution is remote attestation of your machine and yet more data collection?
I'm doing the same but I worry about windows compromise messing with the bootloader so then encrypted linux drive won't save me. Probably too paranoid though?
If you use secure boot and don't let your keys near Windows, you should be fine even if your Windows install is compromised. Unless you don't trust Microsoft themselves, in which case you'd need to re-enroll keys whenever switching operating systems, which is possible, but very tedious.
I'm not sure making a rule would be helpful though, as I think people would ignore it and just not label the source of their comment. I'd like to be wrong about that.
reply