Comment Re:Bitcoin does not need Washington to save it. (Score 2) 59
You're not supposed to sell it. (Does anyone sell euros?) You're supposed to spend it. But hardly anyone takes it.
You're not supposed to sell it. (Does anyone sell euros?) You're supposed to spend it. But hardly anyone takes it.
at some point most people want to sell the Bitcoin for dollars or pounds or euros
The fact that this is even significant (and it is) 15-20 years after the introduction of Bitcoin, shows that it has been a complete, miserable failure.
I think Bitcoin was a neat idea. Shame it didn't work.
Why would they need a warrant? Flock consents to their customers accessing Flock's data.
[various anticipated objections] Yes, but this is in America.
So many Hollywood scriptwriters who lazily decided, "I'll just use Nazis for the bad guys, they're universally-recognized evergreen enemies," are facepalming these days.
(I'm just speculating.) People don't need help with selling fun things; they want a 'bot that can sell the crap which humans have given up on. Anthropic doesn't want to sell widgets; they want to sell stores which sell widgets (sort of like selling pickaxes instead of getting into mining).
Maybe the problem it has been asked to solve is "I have some crap that nobody wants. Sell it."
This story (and the one in December it links to) is telling me the proper use of AI is to be abused, drawing fire away from humans.
I thought "Mommy Has Four Graphics Cards" was pretty good, but "Not Everyone Computes" did a great job of explaining why the industry is largely about remote services rather than running it locally.
This is just too fucking hilarious. If I ask Google for "European search engines" the very first link [after the "AI overview"] is literally that page.
If any Europeans are saying they have to use Google because they don't know about the European search engines, it's because they have never looked for European search engines. The very words are the key to the solution. Google it, Europeans, and then you can be free of Google! Google just one final time.
Relying on proprietary USA software or services is a national security risk for all non-USA countries. So good for Switzerland.
It's just as big of a problem for USA users too. Everyone should be minimizing their proprietary dependencies.
Sure, but if that were the motivation, then they would be banning all foreign vehicles, not just Chinese ones.
Actually, I'm wrong. If security were the reason, then what they'd really do is ban unauditable, proprietary code from all vehicles, regardless of country of origin. If Theo de Raadt says "I checked all the code in this Chinese car and it's fine" then it's probably safer than any Chevrolet.
If it's still not an open protocol, then it's really hard to be at all interested in either the client or the server. Can this new app talk to non-Sonos speakers? Can I use Sonos speakers with my own app? It's ok if either side (or even both!) is currently unimplemented, as long as there are no trade secrets or DMCA shit deliberately preventing legal implementations.
If it can't interoperate on purpose, then it makes Sonos look like just another proprietary lock-in scam, and I don't fall for that trick anymore. Save that bullshit for the 1990s.
Every time people hear what it actually involves is outrage and opposition, at least all the way back to when Intel first announced that they wanted to hardcode identity numbers inside CPUs in 1999. But the corporations involved have been relentless, and have sunk countless billions of dollars steadily forcing it forwards, and building front organizations to obfuscate and whitewash it.
With Windows 11, Microsoft was finally able to FORCE Trusted computing hardware into every new computer. Not just every new Windows computer, but every computer.
Every new Intel PC CPU has built in Trusted Computing enforcement hardware. Every new AMD PC CPU has built in Trusted Computing enforcement hardware. Every new ARM PC CPU has built in Trusted Computing enforcement hardware. The only processor lines that DON'T have it are the microcontrollers.
There are some unlocked smartphones available, but as far as I can determine it's literally impossible to buy a smartphone that doesn't have hardware trusted computing built in.
I specified that enforcing Trusted Computing at the internet access level is still a long term goal, they couldn't get away with it today. However they are well on the way to success. Virtually all new hardware supporting trusted computing, all the front groups rolling out standards and systems, and as it gets incorporated into things everyone is going to increasingly running into situations where they get locked out of stuff if they're not Trusted Computing compliant. Streaming already restricts you to the worst quality if you're not compliant, and it's only going to get worse as pre-Win11 computers fade out and as more things require it.
I'd hardly call exact date of birth "low information content".
And yes this does reveal exact date of birth, regardless of the bullshit obfuscation that it supposedly only reports age range. The server simply tracks the reported result every time the user connects, and on some specific day the result CHANGES to announce their date of birth.
-
This is based on SLSA (Supply-chain Levels for Software Artifacts), brought to you by the same fuckers making Trusted Computing and the TMP (Trusted Platform Module). It's part of the same shitstack to prohibit you from altering your software and to lock you out of your own files, and to send spy reports out over the internet so you can be cut off if you "fail" the Trusted Computing check.
The software can use a TPM's (Trusted Platform Module) Sealing function to encrypt your data such that it's impossible to access your own data if the software is modified. It can then pass control over that data only to software updates that carry a signed security certificate from Broadcom (or any other company using this system).
It is no longer open source, your system no longer works as you can no longer access your Sealed data if you change so much as a single letter of the code. Even recompile unaltered code won't work, unless you magically manage to get your build environment absolutely identical to the company's build environment and get byte-for-byte output. Even that may be impossible with the newer levels of non-deterministic compiler optimizations.
Also, with TMP's Remote Attestation feature can be used to transmit your machine's software configuration over the internet, so that you can be cut off if your system doesn't match Broadcom (or other company's) cryptographically signed certificate.
And then of course there's Network Access Control (NAC) / Trusted Network Connect (TNC). In the long term, the goal is for ISPs to use NAC/TNC to interrogate your computer for Trusted Computing compliance, and deny you any internet access whatsoever if your machine isn't compliant. Software with this sort of "security" certificate would pass inspection, while any attempt to alter the code would be detected as "tampering". You then get "quarantined". What "quarantine" means is that you are denied internet access - with the exception that you do get very restricted access which can only be used to download the approved software to "fix" your computer into Trusted Computing compliance.
Riches cover a multitude of woes. -- Menander