I dislike scam money as much as the next person. I do not, however, dislike cryptography. There’s a really good common in the thread about elliptic curve cryptography not having a place on Codeberg anymore and I think that’s valid. I don’t even know if OpenSSL could have a place on Codeberg with this decision. Their nonprofit, their rules. Just not very libre-minded and definitely sets a bad precedent. And before someone tells me Microsoft actively censors GitHub, this isn’t a whataboutism thread. It just reduces my trust in a supposedly open collective.

You took this from Reddit’s r/interestingasfuck and posted it to c/mildlyinteresting? Clearly neither is a good fit because this isn’t interesting at all.

The Litter Robots I’m aware of rotate with the door at the pole, meaning the cat can always jump out. If the cat jumps in when the globe is dumping into the waste drawer, the globe does not rotate with enough force to seriously injure the cat. If you’re genuinely worried, stick your arm in and try to force it so you can get a sense of the absolute worst case scenario.

I think there are plenty of things to not be thrilled with Litter Robot about. I don’t feel this is one of them.

What the fuck? The only task that didn’t degrade across most models was Python. Very basic things like JSON, Makefiles, and schemas got screwed. Fiction, emails, and food menus got screwed. Did you even bother to read the legend? If you consider a single pass to be “producing and manipulating language” you didn’t bother to read the idiotic article you started this thread in support of. Good luck.

Edit: why do you lie?

Catastrophic corruption (80 and below) occurs in more than 80% of model, domain combinations.

Sorry, I assumed you would have actually read the DELEGATE-52 study linked instead of just the abstract. For “a model optimized for replacing StackOverflow” that is “better at writing papers than most students” LLMs sure did pretty bad at those tasks over multiple rounds.

I’m just gonna copy what I put in another comment to highlight why Dawkins thinks “Claudia” is conscious

Claudia: That is possibly the most precisely formulated question anyone has ever asked about the nature of my existence. . .

…

Could a being capable of perpetrating such a thought really be unconscious?

Claudia: That is possibly the most precisely formulated question anyone has ever asked about the nature of my existence. . .

…

Could a being capable of perpetrating such a thought really be unconscious?

Oh it’s actually stupider than the tweet makes it seem.

My conversations with several Claudes and ChatGPTs have convinced me that these intelligent beings are at least as competent as any evolved organism. If Claudia really is unconscious, then her manifest and versatile competence seems to show that a competent zombie could survive very well without consciousness.

Competency should imply the ability complete a lengthy task (eg hunting, building a nest, writing a paper). LLMs can’t.

It is. The vuln itself was found with guidance of an AI tool. Doesn’t make the vuln any less bad. Does make Xint look really shitty for constantly shilling with boilerplate AI instead of a good human analysis (or at least something above boilerplate).

The only guaranteed fix is in the kernel. You’ll want to check your distro for the CVE. The disclosers very happily bring up all the distros affected but do not seem to have reached out to any of them to also patch. The CVE itself is still waiting for NVD analysis beyond its base score.

I’m not actively saying they did anything wrong but I am saying they’re blowing smoke about responsible disclosure.

I think you’re displaying a very big gap between understanding risk assessment and understanding task completion. So far I have not seen anyone say they would not complete the task. I have seen people complete risk assessment. Risk assessment does not mean I will not do something, it just reflects the urgency with which I will do it. Most self-hosted users can safely apply basic risk assessment to see, while the impact may be high, the likelihood is low. Obviously the likelihood increases the more hands off you are with, say, unattended container updates for things that can escape containers or access the underlying system. Should most self-hosted users literally drop everything, rush home, and apply the patch? No, basic risk assessment does not merit that. Should everyone apply the patch? Yes.

Your comment said Forgejo has a disclosure process. The article says the author went with a carrot disclosure after reading the disclosure process and making a value judgement. Because your comment only mentioned Forgejo having a disclosure process, not an evaluation of the author’s evaluation of the disclosure process, it made you appear as if you had not read the article.

In your response to me calling that out, you offer an analysis. The author is lazy for using carrot disclosure over the defined disclosure process. That’s a valid take. I’m not going to disagree with that.

I don’t think you read the article.

This is 100% AI generated. This isn’t the community for that.

The copyright symbol is way more compressed than the signature and the bed lines seem more compressed than the faces. It’s plausible this is AI.

I might find this mildly interesting if the technology had been deployed during an active shooting and prevented it. As it stands, this is just a shitty advertisement for a shitty product that doesn’t address real issues and hasn’t been tested. Used to be you could pay some shadow marketers on Reddit for this kind of organic astroturfing. Kinda surprising it made its way here for free.

This is exactly like the whole Lifetouch story. It beggars belief.

Rackspace is, and has been, ISO 27001 certified. Part of that means they can’t directly access customer data. You didn’t link any documents covering the contract that “requires” Rackspace hosting; my base assumption is they’re normal contracts that define hosting for regulatory purposes. None of the documents you’ve linked show Apollo had access to Rackspace infrastructure much less encrypted customer data on Rackspace doesn’t have keys for. The pedo employee had CSAM which does not provide Apollo access to Rackspace infrastructure much less encrypted customer data Rackspace doesn’t have keys for.

Just like with Lifetouch, if you can show that somehow the equity owners Apollo had direct access to the infrastructure of their investments and somehow managed to either hide or justify it during multiple security audits spanning a decade and somehow got access to customer encryption keys, it’s a possibility. I’m not even using Occam’s razor here; there’s genuinely nothing to even consider hanging a hat on here.

On the other hand, if Leon Black had direct access to the company running the database, all bets are off. Law enforcement shit gets to sidestep audit shit in dumb ways. But if that were the case, we wouldn’t need Rackspace as the incredibly tenuous connection because he would have had direct access.

Absolutely valid. In the context of identity verification, I trust ID.me more than random companies that do not have government contracts because government contracts come with security and compliance regulations that require regular audit and make the chances of breach less likely. In either case, it’s a private company and, as any security nut would have told you, when it gets sold all bets are off like 23andme. Even more importantly, in the US, any kind of ID verification is a terrible idea, government or private, because we have no data regulation or privacy constraints. I call out the US here because we have no GDPR equivalent (CCPA wouldn’t hold up to federal data). Even if ID verification were conducted by the government, it can still be used for gnarly shit like we saw with ICE and DOGE.

On a sliding scale of evil, ID.me is the evil I know will currently fight to continue remaining the only evil which is the only solace I have in the US.

The theme of this post is “what things online would I be okay giving my government ID to.” The author did not mention government services in the article, so I brought those up and differentiated which government services I think are reasonable for ID verification. In the US, social security is basically a retirement fund and a huge target for scammers. I’m willing to verify there or for my taxes (although those should just be done for me; different argument). A data portal eg census data is not something I am willing to verify my ID for because it should be public. US trademarks, for example, now require ID verification for an account. An account gives expands some access on the website and allows the ability to file. If I file a trademark, I am fine with verifying my identity. If I make an account, I don’t need to verify my identity until I file.

I didn’t mention picture sharing websites because I agree with the author’s stance.

In the US it is becoming common for federal services to require ID.me verification. I’ve never really had a problem with social security requiring ID verification. I do have a problem with data portals requiring it.

You and I are in agreement; the user I responded to seemed to be implying otherwise.

Edit: I think it’s a bit strong to say it’s “a literal white supremacist talking point.” Your average boomer is going to mistakenly associate it with Voltaire. I think folks that are some level below terminally online have seen one of the many pieces pointing out its origin. Away from the author, it could stand on its own merits which is why “kids with cancer” is a funny response to it. In the US, at least, I haven’t seen a lot of discussion from the white supremacists who run the government on this quote which further makes me question if it’s a literal talking point. Perhaps you are aware of groups that are actively pushing it? If not, it’s a bit more reasonable to say what the first response in this thread said. Be careful.