Posts by doublelayer

Sysadmins rage over Apple’s ‘nightmarish’ SSL/TLS cert lifespan cuts plot

Re: OK, then let's focus on really strict security

It's not that hard. Although certificate revocation isn't always used, I'd ask the former owners of something I bought to revoke that certificate, indicating either the "affiliation changed" or "cessation of operation" reason codes, then verify them myself. Then I'd consider the domains switched over. True, that would not stop someone who didn't check those lists from getting untrustworthy data, but it's better than assuming and not checking that they did something with their old certs.

Re: OK, then let's focus on really strict security

No. The new owner could have a new certificate, but until my old one expires, it would work just as well if I could get some traffic sent my way. As far as the certificate authorities were concerned, the domain is mine until that certificate expires. That someone else owns and operates it now is not part of the certificate system, and they don't coordinate to cancel mine if someone else sets up a server. Maybe they would if they use the same authority that I used, although even then they might not bother, but if we used different ones, then there will just be two certs covering the same domain.

UK electronics firms want government to stop taxing trash and let them fix it instead

Re: Repaired or refurbished?

I think we all know why those fees are present. That doesn't change the fact that those fees, and by extension the need for repair techs to charge them, are high enough that it makes repairs expensive and less likely. It doesn't mean we have to find a way of eliminating them and there's little chance that we can. However, when discussing how we can encourage people to repair rather than replace their possessions, we have to understand why they don't. The high cost of labor means there is a floor for the price of a repair no matter how simple, meaning many people will decide that a moderately expensive gamble which might fix their device or might only be the first step before expensive parts have to be purchased or it takes several hours is not worth it when a new replacement could be purchased. In my case, it's much the same, except my alternative is figuring out how to repair things myself. Often, if I can't repair it myself, I assume that calling another repair tech is going to be expensive and doubtful of success because I've already done many of the simplest things, so I am also unlikely to engage the services of one.

Parents take school to court after student punished for using AI

Re: History repeating

Those cases have no relation to one another. However, if I try, I am not on your side. If your school mandated fountain pen and informed you that other methods of writing were going to result in a penalty, then you have some good options:

1. Write in fountain pen.

2. Argue that, although they're asking you to write in fountain pen in order to train you to have good handwriting with them, ballpoint pens are going to be common enough that you don't need that skill, and therefore their policy should be changed.

3. Argue that, although you were told to write in fountain pen for handwriting, this course is not related to handwriting and a different form should be acceptable, and therefore their policy should be changed.

And some bad ones:

4. Write in your preferred method without permission and without attempting to argue otherwise, then act surprised when they do what they said they would do.

5. After receiving your penalty, demand that they refrain from enforcing their clear rules, not because you're arguing the rules are unfair, but because you don't like the consequences.

If you want to try an option 2 or 3 argument on AI, you can. We'll all listen and decide whether we were wrong and AI use is more acceptable than we thought. So far, you haven't, and nor have this student or his parents. They've gone for option 5, and you've chosen option 6: make up irrelevant analogies and pretend they apply when they clearly don't and form a coherent 2/3 argument in favor of something.

You keep saying this, and you're wrong on several different levels. Starting with the facts, you allege that AI was only used for research. Is that even true? The school's motion suggests it was a bit more than that:

Incredibly, RNH and his parents contend that using AI to draft, edit and research content for an AP US History project, all while not citing to use of AI in the project, is not an “act of dishonesty,” “use of unauthorized technology” or plagiarism

How do you know it was not also used to write some of the paper, whether it was later rephrased or not?

But even if you were right, do you see something in the rules that says "AI shall not be used unless you're using it as a search engine, then you're fine"? I don't see that. So maybe it's the other way and it says "AI is forbidden only for the following purposes" and those purposes don't include searching? Do you see that? I see a global ban on the technology unless it's authorized, which the school indicates they did not do.

Take a calculator to early mathematics classes and see how quickly they take it away. Take a more advanced calculator to classes and they'll require you to downgrade. Take an unapproved calculator to tests and they'll disqualify you. Education and testing are performed under constraints. If you deliberately violate them, that's called cheating. If you think the constraints are bad, then you can try to change them, but if you act like they don't apply because you don't like them, you'll quickly discover how much your opinion affects what the rules say.

Re: School rules

We don't have the full text of the rules, but "should not and you will be penalized if you do" is equivalent enough to "must not" for this situation.

'Newport would look like Dubai' if guy could dumpster dive for lost Bitcoin drive

That is not how stores of value work. Something is a good store of value if the value you have is reliably maintained. If I bought Bitcoin in 2013, I'd have lots more value. If I bought it in 2021, I'd have lost 17%, not counting inflationary losses, which there would also be if you're going to use them for pounds. If you're using inflation rates to calculate the real value, that has to be included for all of them. This doesn't make it a good store of value. If it was, I could buy it today with the reasonable belief that the value I put in would be maintained.

As an investment, Bitcoin was very good in the long term. That is not the same as a store of value and should not be confused for one. In addition, you are making the unsupported claim that, because Bitcoin rose a lot in the last decade, it will be good in the next one. You haven't been clear whether you think it's going to rise similarly, with a 2034 price in the millions, or be more stable, but you've clearly argued on no evidence that it isn't going to crash. As investment advertisements have said, past performance is not a guarantee of future results.

Re: Labeling & Storage

He's been trying to get this back for some time after the drive was trashed in 2013. I'm sure he would happily have gone looking in 2014, in fact the internet suggests that he tried and failed. I merely indicate that, even at the 2013 low of $13 per coin, that was enough value that he should have backed that up and been more careful with the disk until he did. It probably wasn't worth much when he mined it in 2009-2010, but by that point, he would have known that the value had increased and should have acted appropriately. Either he is lying about the value, which seems unlikely because there's no real benefit in excavating a landfill otherwise, or he made a really stupid decision at the time and has to suffer the consequences.

I'd have felt more sympathy if the drive was discarded when the value was very low. It wouldn't change reality, but I could imagine losing something because it wasn't enough to buy a coffee so I didn't look after it. Doing that and later finding that it was worth millions would be quite disappointing but I wouldn't blame myself. Doing that when the current value was enough to buy several cars would be a lot more on me.

There is a size of working blank hard drive which is low enough for me not to. A 120 GB spinning hard drive with twelve years on the clock, I don't need that. I probably don't need the number of working hard drives I have. They're not SSDs, those are almost all in use. Maybe it was something like that. You only need about 6 kB for a wallet.

Re: Labeling & Storage

It probably wasn't worth very much when it was first mined, so it seemed relatively meaningless, but by the time it was discarded, that value was probably around $90k US, so upgrading its handling might have been a good idea. Back when I mined a small amount of cryptocurrency to see how it worked, I also didn't treat my wallet IDs with care, meaning I lost my all-time funds with an approximate value of $0.23 US, which would be today [checking...] $0.84 or so. I'm fine with this. If I wasn't, I had lots of options.

Bandai Namco reportedly tries to bore staff into quitting, skirting Japan’s labor laws

Which is why I made up my scenario. Getting any kind of employment claim has some difficulty, but it is probably relatively easy to get one for "they told me to sit in a room and not move". Getting one for "I am a programmer and they want me to write a stupid program that nobody really needs" or "I am a manager and they're making me check and correct reports that nobody really needs" sounds pretty hard to spin as intolerable changes. Giving a lot of latitude to a court makes things more ambiguous, but it may favor a company that has an employment law expert on call when the changes they're making are specifically intended to bypass other labor laws.

It's a vague enough concept that, even though some laws probably forbid something like it, you could probably implement something to get around those restrictions. For example, a law might cover the doing nothing option, but might not cover doing something boring or annoying. In fact, if they actually have you doing nothing, you might find a way to employ the time even if you do have to be present in a location, so doing something stupid might be more effective.

Many contracts are unclear about what exactly counts as an activity you're employed to do, but if it really came down to it, you could always find some boring and pointless thing that sounds like it's part of your job. So you're an IT person, normally administering servers? Well, cleaning out old keyboards could be a job function. Remember that we want to verify that the keyboards still function well for fast typing, so you have to press each key a hundred times and verify how many times it missed. Meanwhile, next door, a programmer is writing a program to intercept and count key presses and verify the machine-generated report against the human-entered report. A manager is one door down from that and has to have a meeting every time the reports differ to discuss why there are inaccuracies in the report. The company can argue that each of those people is doing something related to their job function that could have a beneficial effect on the company if they had to.

I feel guilty for coming up with that method. I hope nobody actually does it.

Opening up the WinAmp source to all goes badly as owners delete entire repo

You are right that open sourcing isn't only done when you no longer care about the code. However, it is one of two main times when someone considers open sourcing something they previously considered proprietary. Usually, these are the following:

1. They want more work done on it for their use of it and are willing to give up revenue to get that.

2. They no longer want to support it, and people who still use it are asking for it to be open sourced.

This problem doesn't much affect branch 1, but it is quite limiting for branch 2. I was talking with a company a while ago who in spirit was willing to open source something which I would help to manage afterward, but, even without doing a code review which, given the code's age, wasn't likely, they didn't want to spend the time checking out the legal situation. The code had been inherited from a previous company which had been acquired, and that company got some of it from a university project, so it would have taken some time to check whether the university still owned any of it. The project concerned was in the 1980s and wasn't used elsewhere, so it was pretty obvious that nobody at the university would actually care, but the legal side doesn't really work on the basis of nobody caring. The code is still unavailable today.

Re: Simplest solution

To be honest, I brought the word evil in by saying that proprietary was "not evil", but they adopted the contrary argument, still including "evil", with a lot more confidence than I expected.

Re: Simplest solution

Do you have one, and remember that your solution also needs to overcome the effects of your previous policy of "if you can copy it, then everyone can have it without restriction and you are required to release it immediately without any compensation". If you don't, I see you retreating into vagueness because your idea is harmful in many ways and you have no ability to do better. Maybe we should consider changes, but a non-specific statement like that doesn't argue in favor or against anything we currently have or anything we could do differently.

Re: which permits forking but prevents distribution of modified versions

It depends what you mean by "compiled binary". If you install WinAmp to C:\...\winamp, you have a few options:

1. C:\...\winamp\winamp.exe contains the GPLed code: license is supposed to apply to the whole thing

2. C:\...\winamp\somelibrary.dll contains the GPLed code and winamp.exe loads it: license is supposed to apply to the whole thing

3. C:\...\winamp\otherthing.exe contains the GPLed code, winamp.exe calls this: only otherthing.exe is covered. If otherthing.exe is a direct compilation of the GPL project, then there will be no new code at all, although they're supposed to tell you.

4. A DLL loaded by a separate process, see number 3.

We have the other option of

5. It wouldn't be installed at all. They just dropped it in by mistake.

Re: Simplest solution

A super abundant resource? Do you mean the kind of code you get by paying hundreds of people with rare skills lots of money for a long time? Stop paying them and see how abundant that resource is. Some of the code I have bought licenses to isn't simple. It's not something I could just write if I spent a weekend. It often involves doing lots of painstaking labor, for example collecting lots of data, normalizing it into a format that can be easily handled by a program, writing a program that can do useful things to that, and then thoroughly testing that program so I can do things the authors didn't imagine and they work reliably. If open source groups got together and made that, it would be great, but in many of these cases, they didn't and won't because it is too large a task to do without paying people and they don't get enough in donations to manage it.

Let me guess. You think that, because making a copy of the files is free, that means it should be free. That doesn't work. Most of those files will not be created if the creators can't benefit by doing so. Those who are willing to do that for free already do and use open source licenses to encourage others to do the same. I am one of those people. That is me choosing to give my work away. Requiring that everything I do be treated like that would force me to do a different job, meaning less code created, both open source and proprietary. It's a bad argument every time it's tried. I'm not sure I can do anything to convince adherents of this fact, but it remains a fact.

Re: which permits forking but prevents distribution of modified versions

If that GPL2 code was linked, yes, maybe. If it was something else, that does not automatically apply GPL2 to the rest of it. It just indicates that they can't apply their proprietary license to those bits. For example, if that was a separate binary which they called to decode something, quite common in media players, their code is not covered by the GPL, explicitly or implicitly. If that code was included in the repo by mistake and isn't required to use it, not covered. Only if they took a GPLed library and included it directly in the application is the code of that application covered as well. Given that code for unrelated projects was coming through, the presence of that code in the repository is not enough to conclude that it covers the whole. You have to read the code to determine what part if any it touches.

Re: Simplest solution

Cloud-hosted software as a service has entered the room.

Cloud-hosted software as a service has taken over the room.

Maybe everything you ever run is open source. Not everything I run is. Sometimes, the way to get people to write the code you want to run is to pay them for it, and I don't have the funds to finance the development process myself, but I can easily afford to buy licenses for stuff I want. I prefer to run that stuff on my own computer, but if they're required to hand me the source code in that case, they'll restrict it to running on their servers or whatever environment it takes to prevent me from accessing that code.

Proprietary software is not automatically evil.

Would banning ransomware insurance stop the scourge?

Before you hand it to a criminal, it is not the proceeds of a crime. It is your money. You may read that law again, looking for the part where it defines any payment to a criminal as money laundering, but you won't find it. The rest of the chain, yes. Your end of it, no. In fact, the criminal hasn't done any money laundering until they try to obscure the source of that money. If they go out and say "I have some ransom money and I want to buy something with it", they've only committed the original offenses.

Your overeager interpretation is incorrect in several other ways. Yes, I can get £10k of cash and buy something with it anonymously. The bank will record that I withdrew it. The other bank will likely report that they deposited it. However, purchasing something expensive anonymously with cash is not illegal. Buying something with stolen cash is, and if I am a criminal, I might be charged with money laundering as well as whatever crime gave me the cash. The person I bought the expensive thing from is not required to verify my identity. If they too know that I am a criminal, they are guilty as well. If they do not know that, they are not guilty. Some institutions have a requirement to verify identities first, but not to verify the source of my cash. They too are not guilty, because they have complied with their requirement to have a record of the identity of the payer. Law enforcement may ask them for that information during the investigation, but even if it turns out I am a criminal, they were not supposed to identify that before allowing me to complete a purchase. Even more businesses are not required by law to verify identities and do it anyway.

Your page makes that clear (emphasis mine):

Criminal property (defined in POCA) constitutes or represents a person's benefit from criminal conduct where the alleged offender knows or suspects that the property in question represents such a benefit.

I don't think money laundering means what you think it means. Laundering money is when someone takes money from an illegal source and hides it to appear legal again. If you pay a ransom, the criminal who received it is likely going to launder it so they can buy stuff with it. You are not laundering it because the money concerned was provably yours. You have not laundered any money, just given it to a criminal, which is not currently illegal.

There are a few crimes which come into play just by giving money to someone. Those include funding terrorism or evading sanctions. However, there are a few provisos that you should consider before you take your comment and do a "s/money laundering/funding terrorism/g" on it. First among those is that, to be a crime, a specific entity must be on a list set by your country. If it's not on that list, those crimes do not apply. They would still apply if you specifically requested use of your funds for terrorism, but you didn't. You may also be off the hook if you can convincingly demonstrate that you did not know they were going to a sanctioned person or group. No, that doesn't mean that you have to show proof that you know who it is going to. For instance, North Korea is under sanction, and if I send any money to them, I've committed a crime. They get around this by operating some businesses internationally, for instance several restaurants, mostly in southeast Asia. If I'm traveling in southeast Asia, I don't have to question and record all the restaurants I visit for their ownership. If I pick a North Korea-run one by accident, that's unfortunate. Only if I pick it on purpose is it sanctions evasion. That is why ransomware is a popular way of evading sanctions, because the current laws do not forbid it.

If you don't like how the current legal situation works, that situation must be changed. It is not money laundering to pay a ransom, and it will never be, but we could easily make it a crime anyway. Doing that would likely help quite a lot. I support doing it. We can't pretend that it is already done.

Re: i guess she's saying that law enforcement is pathetic

When you have a plan for having a law enforcement body with the ability and power to find people who are hiding well, whose organization, ringleaders, and many of the participants are in a country that is unwilling to extradite or even investigate them, and who do not need to meet physically, let us know. In the meantime, we will need to plan for how to combat ransomware when you can't catch them. There are only so many of them who will be identified and travel to countries they shouldn't, although when it happens, law enforcement has tended to make them regret doing so.

Trump campaign arms up with 'unhackable' phones after Iranian intrusion

Re: Intentionally Be-bugging Computer Code

And also 3. time spent fixing bugs that were deliberately introduced is time not spent fixing bugs that were actually there. It shouldn't be hard for managers to recognize that time is finite. Shouldn't be, but sometimes I wonder.

They may be right

They may be correct in a few, carefully limited ways about the quality of their code. Not that it's entirely unhackable, but for example, that NSO's existing exploits wouldn't work on it, that people don't have active exploits for it, that there aren't low-hanging vulnerabilities ready for the taking. There is code that obtains that level of quality, although I have no evidence that theirs is. Still, there are some times where code is good enough that finding a vulnerability directly through it is difficult or impractical, so maybe theirs has that.

However, that's not going to help you when attackers bypass it, as they're already trying to because that's cheaper and faster anyway. The humans are the weakest links in this scenario, and there are probably many limits. For example, the quoted figure of ten thousand lines of code actually makes it more likely that they have thoroughly checked that code, but it means that whatever it can do, it's probably not that many things. Maybe that doesn't include connectivity code because it runs on a different chip, in which case there's a place to look for vulnerabilities. Maybe it does, in which case I'm wondering what communication methods it actually supports to fit into that relatively small code limit. If the answer is that it can send text messages, presumably encrypted, and that's it, then the attackers can cheerfully ignore this and go to the systems on which all the information is stored. Sure, they might miss the last minute messages about something, but they'll see everything important enough that someone wanted a permanent note of it. People don't abandon email or group messages to use phones alone, and an attacker might find all the stuff they want on a different system. Even if the phones are unhackable, that won't be enough, and the phones probably aren't unhackable even if the code this company wrote was.

WordPress saga escalates as WP Engine plugin forcibly forked and legal letters fly

Re: Four Fox Ache

Probably the same barriers there always are with a new fork. If a problem is detected in it, who do I think is going to fix it first? Who is going to fix it better? And do I worry that one of them is going to try to screw over the other, for example by making a fix and licensing it in such a way that the other fork can't adopt that fix and therefore delaying their fix?

This happens all the time. When Amazon forked ElasticSearch, Elastic quickly enough introduced a change intended to prevent libraries from working with Amazon's version. They're still fighting that one out, but as I don't use the products much anymore, I'm not up to date with developments there. If I was using these, I'd be worried about SCF's reliability because they might be more interested in making things harder for WP Engine than delivering the thing that the plugin was intended to do. I could use it easily, but I'd prefer not to and I'd be worried if I had to.

BOFH: Boss's quest for AI-generated program ends where it should've begun

Re: you just need to ask AI to sum up the numbers

Probably true. I haven't checked the various competitors for how well their creators have hidden this fact. However, at least some of them have decided that making such elementary mistakes is a bad look and have done the same kind of preemptive parsing that there is in the Google search box to catch and complete arithmetic problems before they arrive at the LLM which can't handle them. It doesn't really change anything important; relying on an LLM to do calculations is a bad idea. However, the easiest ones will probably gradually get fixed. For most of us, this is actually a bad thing. The more simple calculations the LLMs can seem to do correctly, the more complex ones they will be given by idiots who will not check their work.

Re: you just need to ask AI to sum up the numbers

I'm not sure it was meant as a serious suggestion. However, if you don't know enough to write your own sum function, asking AI to do it for you will generate something that might work or might not and you don't have the expertise to figure out where its problems are. If it produces something that crashes immediately, that will at least be clear, but if it works on some but not all inputs, reading the code is the most reliable way to find that out before you rely on it. As such, asking for a program that you can't test is no more reliable and potentially more dangerous than just asking for the answer.

This is even more the case because the spec for the program was vague as always. Summing numbers isn't that hard (except for precision, overflow, speed, or various other more advanced cases), but getting them out of some system, into the program, and the result into a desired location is trickier. If you ask anyone, human or LLM, to write a program that sums numbers from a spreadsheet, most of the code will be related to getting the numbers out rather than summing them. With more potential sources, the program the boss asked for basically can't be written without clarifying where the numbers are going to be, in what format, and where the result should go.

So even though it was meant as mockery, asking for the result at least eliminates all the parsing and retrieval code, which means that lots of possible bugs are not going to be there. As LLM companies improve them, straightforward mathematical tasks will improve. That's not because LLMs will become more intelligent. It is because these companies like to hide the places where their models screw up, and this one isn't the hardest to handle properly. Figuring out whether a calculation is needed and then running that calculation outside the model is already done in some products. It's fragile, so if you need anything complex done it's likely to stop working, but for simple calculations of the kind you could quickly do in your head or on a pocket calculator, it means fewer embarrassing errors.

Smart homes may be a bright idea, just not for the dim bulbs who live in 'em

Re: "Ask me how I know."

Maybe not the lesson that you had in mind. I'm guessing that yours goes along the lines of "never have smart light bulbs". It's a lesson that I find very easy to use, because I still don't have a use for them and I have no difficulty getting to and operating a light switch.

However, if you are a person who needs (for example, not being able to easily get to or operate a switch due to a disability) or wants (for example, I don't know, but some people clearly do) smart bulbs, the lesson is not that you are wrong and need to change. The lesson is that a lot of the bulbs are bad and you probably want to research the options before buying them. I don't know which category Mr. Goodwins is in, but it sounds like he might be. Just because you aren't in either category doesn't mean that everyone is the same.

Compression? What's that? And why is the network congested and the PCs frozen?

When you have people who insist on bad subject lines, sometimes you need it:

Re: Request

Alice, please consider this a high priority request. It is important.

-Bob

Hopefully, you only have one email with the subject line "Request". Even if you do, you may have to delve into your history to find it. But what happens if you have two of them. How do you figure out which one is the important request and which one isn't supposed to happen at all? You could guess based on which one looks more probable. You could contact Bob, but maybe Bob has left for the day which is why he asked you to do it. You could open the headers and see if there is a commonality you can use. If Bob replied all, then probably you could use the other recipients to find out.

Yes, it also causes problems, but sometimes it is necessary.

Re: "Shared Cloudy Thing"

It does as much as can be done in that situation. If they're retrieving a file over HTTP, it will adjust to the speed of their connection, and in nearly all cases, including most cloud services, it can be resumed rather than restarted if the connection breaks.

A point-to-point transfer would be better in some cases, but it too would not deal with the problem of a link that takes too long. It can also be more difficult to set up for the uninitiated, and depending on the protocol in use, more fragile.

UK ponders USB-C as common charging standard

Re: One socket to rule them all

Keep them around for a while, knowing that at some point you'll need one of them. This should last until the third or fourth time when you think you've finally had the occasion where you're going to need them and you test all the cables to find the plug that fits and find that one of the following apply:

1. None of your plugs fit right, even though you've got about forty of them.

2. One of your plugs looks like it fits, and the voltage is wrong, so you cut the wires and used two of them to try to work, and it's not working because it turns out the plug doesn't connect fully, so now you have four pieces of cables instead of two intact ones.

3. One of your plugs fits, but you can't find any information about the voltage and polarity you need because either the manufacturer no longer exists or the manufacturer exists and has twenty different models all of which have different settings and they all look the same.

4. You found out what voltage was needed and you're powering the device, and you're feeling great until it starts to act wrong. This is probably an undercurrent, but who knows for sure.

Then recycle them.

Re: I have one problem with USB C

I'm not sure whether the products are technically violating Apple's patents, but I have a number of magnetic plug adapters that were easily purchased. My laptop, non-Apple, is running off a magnetic USB-C connector and cable. Unfortunately a proprietary plug in the middle, so if the cable breaks I'll have to either buy from the same supplier or switch out the little plug too, but neither part was very expensive. It works the same way that Apple's MagSafe did, although there is one difference I have noticed which is that my cable isn't made of the Apple special insulation, which I trust they also have a patent on. You know, the stuff that somehow manages to peel or melt or somehow come off the cable even though no other cable you own has ever done that. But the magnetic part works the same.

Re: "wall wart of fortune"

There is, but a lot of devices helpfully forget to note these requirements on the product itself or in the documentation. So if the cable for the product has been lost, or more likely it stopped working and the owner binned it before asking you to source a replacement, it can be difficult to figure out where to find this information.

I recently tried to help solve a problem where two quite similar Dell laptops with barrel adapters needed opposite polarities but the same size of cable. The office that had purchased them thought the cables were interchangeable because they were both from Dell and the same size, so when one adapter broke, they cycled some around. It didn't work, though fortunately none of the laptops broke from it. This is why I want USB-C charging on my laptops.

USB-C isn't perfect and could use some standardization. For instance, I'm tired of devices where only some of the ports can charge the device. I don't think it will break the device if the wrong port is used, but it's still a recipe for annoyance. Compared to previous methods, it's still less frustrating.

Why send a message when you can get your Zoom digital video clone to read the script?

Re: And I'd want to why?

You might have noticed that most of those things involve more than seeing someone read it. Theater. You could go to a table read, where you sit in a chair and watch someone read out something on a sheet of paper, but most people prefer to go see the actors move around sets. No sets in an AI-read video. That's out. Film and TV are the same thing, but nowadays you're not limited to sets they can build in a room because they can have the actors moving around in front of fake but realistic-looking things you couldn't see elsewhere. As before, none of that in the video. And radio does not involve watching someone read it. You just listen, although you may just listen to something including music or sound effects. News radio often has the advantage of being faster to receive than was a newspaper, and you can listen while looking elsewhere.

There are reasons for an audio or video to exist, but those reasons rely on benefits of the medium. As I explained in my comment, a video makes a lot of sense if I'm going to demonstrate something rather than just explain it, but the Zoom avatar is not going to demonstrate it for me, and if I used one of the AI models that can actually make a video showing it, I'll spend more time explaining what it should look like so the video is accurate than it would take to make it in person. The advantages that led to the things you mentioned are entirely unavailable for this.

And I'd want to why?

What they might want to think about before building all of this is why, if I have a script, I need a video of a puppet me reading the script. If it's just the script, people can read the script. If they want to listen to someone reading the script, there are lots of text to speech systems out there from which I can get an audio file of the script. If a video is actually needed, it probably is needed so that things other than me might appear in it. If, for example, the script involves me pointing at or even demonstrating things, then we might need a video, but the AI video won't do that. If we need such a video, but I'm rubbish at speaking during the video, then I could do the whole silent actor thing and point at or demonstrate things, then dub in any other voice, including artificial ones. Most people are able to do a video like this well enough that it gets used. Internal videos don't have the highest production standards.

Schools bombarded by nation-state attacks, ransomware gangs, and everyone in between

Re: Attackers

It could work, but you'd have to find students who are good at providing that information without getting caught. With some time, effort, money, and some more time, you could do it. Or for really cheap you could send phishing messages to students and start probing from their taken over laptops.

Similarly, you could get a student to attend courses for a while, excel at their studies, and make a good impression on research professors. That student eventually gets invited onto a research team and does a great job, and then they get invited to work on something the host government cares a lot about and can start sending back the sensitive data. Or you could identify the professor involved by reading public information on websites and papers, look at other public information about them to craft a phishing message, and take a chance at getting access to their work right now. Undoubtedly both happen, but I'm expecting that the cheap option ends up being more popular.

Techie took five minutes to fix problem Adobe and Microsoft couldn't solve in two weeks

Ah, so my Windows installation was not a real OS. But then I installed git for Windows, including its bash environment with all of those except emacs which I could also install, and now it is.

Is this really the level of argument you can go to? The name of the file list command is important?

Re: I've not really used Windows much for 15+ years

I don't think so. Windows wouldn't finish installing until it had restarted the correct number of times, and it would manage its own restarts and run the needed ones. I'm pretty sure that what happened was the person installed Windows 8 but was not aware of the fast startup option or how it worked. Then they installed an Adobe product which needed to restart and probably offered to do so at the end of the installation. Probably if they had let it do that, a normal restart would have been executed, hence why Adobe hadn't caught this problem while testing. The user, however, needed to save some work so didn't let the installation restart for them, and they just shut down. Adobe hadn't labeled the need for a full restart, so shutting down and powering on wasn't good enough for them. Therefore, the application didn't work because it still needed a proper restart.

That's an unusual config. It suggests that your machines are set to boot to USB devices before internal drives, which is atypical and probably not the best choice. Every machine I've used in the past twenty years has required that a USB drive be manually selected to boot to it by default, a default I haven't and don't want to change. One of the major benefits of this is that there isn't much malware which bothers to make external disks bootable infection vectors because, unlike in the age of floppies, the authors know it's not going to be booted to anyway.

FBI created a cryptocurrency so it could watch it being abused

Because "Ponzi scheme" is a more complicated concept than something weird related to money. There are lots of types of financial schemes that are not Ponzi schemes. There are a lot of dubious financial things that aren't fraud at all, just bad ideas for people who don't know what they're doing. There are things that people don't like, either because there are real ethical concerns or because those people don't understand them, which are not any of the above.

Using a term with a specific meaning for things that aren't related to that does not help explain what the problem is, whether you want to explain it to educate someone about what they should do or you want to change the regulations to prevent it from happening at all. Computer crime and things that aren't illegal but should be computer crime won't be fixed if I insist on calling it arson. Financial crime and things that aren't but should be won't be fixed if I insist on calling it a Ponzi scheme.

Copilot's crudeness has left Microsoft chasing Google, again

All the time. It isn't just "Alice suggested we redesign this and people smiled, so we're going to", but if the people concluded that this made more sense than Bob's proposal to change the training documents and leave the code alone, then the notes will say that. If the redesign the code suggestion came up first and was discussed for three minutes, and then the documentation proposal was made and discussed for twenty, and then people said that they thought the training solution was less helpful than the code one, will Copilot properly understand that two thirds of the meeting might have been necessary to decide against something but does not need to be brought up in the next steps email? I don't know, but I wouldn't want to count on it.

Dutch cops reveal takedown of 'world's largest dark web market'

Often, they're referring to Tor hidden services. Not always, and when they talk about domains being seized it might not be, but quite often that is where the illegal markets are set up. If they're doing it correctly, there is no IP address you can enter to arrive there. You have to go through Tor and use the domain name, which is really a public key, to find and connect to the site. It gives people some of the tools required for anonymity, but if you're not careful, you can mess it up, and you also need to do more than just have a hidden service to not be found.

You have issues with 'Issues' always being called 'Issues' in Jira, so Atlassian now allows them to be called ‘Tasks’

Re: Terminology

A ticket is a weird term, although that's hardly going to stop them given all the other weird terms that get used. However, it doesn't really work well for organizing them. A ticket containing a ticket of tickets is not a metaphor that's going to work very well. Of course, you could just have groups containing items or other groups, and if you want you could call the items tickets. If you're only going to have one word for everything in the system, who cares what that word is?

Uncle Sam may force Google to sell Chrome browser, or Android OS

I think that most people, if presented with the search engine screen, would choose Google from brand recognition and inertia. Google is willing to spend billions to prevent that from happening. Either they know better than I do about what people will do with a choice, although those people can still go into the settings and get a choice screen with common engines listed, or the team that does this stuff has a massive budget and no oversight.

What would be the logic of that? I can see a case for Microsoft: if they own both the cloud service and an operating system you might run in it, then they could do what they have to make it more expensive to run Windows in someone else's cloud. But that doesn't apply to either of the other two. Having an online store has no direct conflicts with running servers, and unless they did something like forbidding people to sell stuff in the Amazon store if they used a competitor's cloud (they haven't), there's no reason to break along that line. They do plenty of similar things, but related to things like whose shipping network you use, not whose cloud servers. Likewise with Google Cloud and Google Search.

When you make a case for breaking up a company, you usually have to describe how having positions in those two lines causes a conflict. Each company has plenty of complementary businesses for which you can easily make that argument, but that doesn't mean that every pair of services works that way. Browser and a search engine: yes. OS and app distribution: yes. OS and browser: yes. Search engine and app distribution: probably not unless they were intentionally keeping F-Droid out of search results, but you could try. Cloud servers and a mobile OS: I don't see it. These are important because you need to prove that an abuse exists to split them at all, and the lines where these conflicts exist are where the breaking needs to occur to stop the negative results.

Bitcoin creator suspect says he is not Bitcoin creator suspect

Re: Imagine

Not the known ones. It would have been quite simple for him to have had a bunch of them, some of which have been transacted over and over again while others stayed quiet. He could have earned no real money from any of his bitcoin or he could have cashed out quite a bit over the years, pretending to be an average miner or trader. We don't have enough information to prove which.

Microsoft veteran ditches Team Tabs, blaming storage trauma of yesteryear

As others have noted, nearly every editor has a setting that sets what the tab key does. Press the tab key and, instead of inserting a tab character, it inserts however many space characters you told it to. Press shift+tab and it removes them back to a multiple of the number you set. I use spaces, not because I think spaces are better, but that others think so and I'm willing to go along with them, but I do not press the space key to insert them one at a time. I press the tab key to insert them in chunks of the appropriate size. For the same reason, my editor is also set that, when I press enter to move to a new line, it fills that new line with the same amount of indentation as the last line. Otherwise, I'd have to press tab to indent every line manually and I don't want to.

It depends how you like your code indented. If, for example, you want a multiline function call to line up the first letter of the second line with the parenthesis of the function call, or in some cases the first character after that parenthesis, then that parenthesis might not be on a tab boundary. My solution to this is to not align that letter and that parenthesis, and I'm using spaces. I just can't be bothered. However, there are people who want those things aligned and if they get their way, then spaces are the only option for doing it.

Linus Torvalds declares war on the passive voice

Re: I'm British...

So do many options involving the active voice, though I grant not the example I used.

I fixed the bug in the thing [in a commit two weeks ago].

These changes [but not this one] fix the bug in the thing.

I contend that this is not really a concern that has much relevance. If people are putting in commit messages that do not correspond to what the commit actually does, how they phrase it is not the problem. Anyone doing this is either deliberately dishonest or getting commits confused, and neither is going to be fixed by adding a subject picked from a short list to the sentence. I also wonder where my most typical form would fall. I tend to write commit messages in the active voice but without a subject ("fixes a bug in the thing"). Yes, those are fragments. It hasn't caused a problem so far and sticking "this" on the front won't help.