Also @[email protected].
What’s absurd is this crypto maximalist take.
You can’t just make up your own permission and punishment system, and then expect the legal system to just step aside and let it handle all disputes, especially when it comes to fraud. That’s like founding your own city in an existing country, and declaring all existing law obsolete. I know some people think this is a real possibility, but the real world doesn’t work like that.
IANAL and all, but bad/unfavorable contracts and literal deception/fraud are two different things, at least in the legal system. Not everything that’s technically possible is also allowed, obviously.
Compare it to using a security flaw to hack into a system. Technically you’re only using the official API, maybe in unusual ways, but still. But you’re doing it in bad faith and causing harm, maybe pretending to be someone you’re not or injecting fake data into the system, and that can make a difference.
It’s not. They tricked some MEV-Boost bots into doing bad trades.
Here is a more detailed explanation of the exploit.
The Pepaire-Bueno brothers exploited a bug in MEV-boost’s code that allowed them to preview the content of blocks before they were officially delivered to validators, according to the indictment.
The brothers created 16 Ethereum validators and targeted three specific traders who operated MEV bots, the indictment said. They used bait transactions to figure out how those bots traded, lured the bots to one of their validators which was validating a new block and basically tricked these bots into proposing certain transactions. […]
So hardly an attack on any core system of cryptocurrencies.
I hope at that point we have enough capable alternatives. Like, hopefully around the time they add ads is also the time when open-source models and apps have caught up again.
It’s a group therapy called [email protected], we always have free seats!
This is pretty impressive and hella creepy!
If you’re curious, here are the numbers added up for all Lemmy instances with 10+ users:
blocked/fedipact
federated
Yes and yes. It runs the bridge and en/decrypts messages locally on your device, so full e2ee is preserved. The bridge still has to login to your messenger accounts, so nothing changes there.
There’s almost no difference to a good Matrix client if you already selfhost the server and bridges. Most of the Beeper client’s value is making it very easy to manage the bridges they host for you.
They don’t have to make extra apps, just remove restrictions that make some functionality exclusive to iPhones or Apple Watches. So iPhones get the same access to Apple Watches as other phones, and Apple Watches get the same access to iPhones as other watches.
I have yet to try it myself, but in principle I think it’s a bit of a solution in search of a problem.
The tech is impressive, but I can’t shake the feeling that they focussed too hard on the wrong things. It’s not as good for VR gaming as other headsets, and imo an AR/MR device needs to be extremely lightweight, so you can wear it comfortably for at least a few hours. That leaves maybe movies I guess, but even for those some cheaper headsets are usually more than good enough.
So what exactly is the selling point for this thing? Who and what is it for?! Seems to me like it’s more of a research device than anything else, to get the ball rolling for more in the future.
The answer is app stores. People need to find your app, and web apps usually don’t show up there. Also the web ecosystem is inherently slower to adopt new features, and it has historically been harder to build very custom experiences on it.
Incredible innovation, so brave!
Oh look, the EU threatens to investigate and potentially fine them, and suddenly there IS a way to preserve “security and privacy” with web apps. It’s almost like the initial reasoning for the change was complete bullshit!
It’s still only halfway there, but at least they are not removing existing functionality anymore. Let’s see how the EU likes this new “only WebKit” restriction.
The problematic ones for that are mostly recommendation algorithms afaik, but there are others like gamification ofc. You can call them engagement algorithms if you want to be a bit more broad. But that’s what I mean when I criticize “algorithmic” platforms, and I think that’s what most people mean when they talk about algorithms in this context.
There was some Internet outrage the other day: Google pauses Gemini’s ability to generate people after overcorrecting for diversity in historical images
And which algorithms would that be?
I’m referring to recommendation algorithms, the bad thing about them is that they can be used to manipulate people. Algorithms in general are fine of course.
No, it really doesn’t. That’s like creating a bot that buys and sells company shares automatically, and saying the stock exchange has a vulnerability because your bot makes bad decisions.