I have a dual boot. And the penguin works and Microsoft is still sitting around not having an update. I don't really care. But I can't game with out Windows. So, bleh.
I play overwatch on endeavouros and I have better experience on it than in windows.
League of legends will stop working soon. In general most of the games with rootkit anticheat clients will not work on Linux.
On protondb you can see rankings and user comments about games. Last I checked 2% of all games are not working on Linux.
I can play every Paradox Game on Linux. Therefore, I can play every game that matters. Now, if you need me, I'll be in Crusader Kings, trying to build a family tree that looks like a giant beanstalk.
I'm actually transitioning. Windows for what I need it for but daily driver on mint. I think that makes the updates worse since I'm not using Windows as often.
These incessant, full-screen upgrade ads, with no way of canceling other than a small "Remind me later" tucked away in the corner, where the final straw from me switching to Linux.
When this screen recently came up, i had a mini stroke because it looked like it just updated itself...
Iam really sold for linux mint, but my laptop is currently my desktop and i need functional Dockingstation use and an external gpu. Which doesn't do well on Linux :(
If I can lie on my couch while typing away on my custom virtual workspace it might be worth it but the resolution requirements make that unlikely any time soon
This thing is overpriced but there’s no way Apple ships it if they don’t have the pixel density to render text in a way that doesn’t make your eyes bleed. It’s being marketed as a work device, after all.
Yah but my dream setup is something that mimic 2/3 monitors sitting on a desk (or some VR-optimized version of that). In the real world those monitors are each 1080p+ and sitting in full view so the whole "scene" you're looking at has many more pixels than just what is on all the monitors combined. If you scale that scene down to 4K resolution then the text on those monitors would likely be blurry or unreadable.
Obviously there are other ways to make a 4K resolution usable by zooming way in but that's much less "screen" real estate than what a real workspace offers.
It also has basically no battery life and once that mostly useless battery becomes completely useless you are never unplugging that thing from the wall because you bet Apple made that battery impossible to replace!
Did they say this or is this your pet theory? I don't feel like that is necessarily the best strategy, since people won't develop for it, when there's no users and no users will appear when no one develops an ecosystem for this thing...
You have to start somewhere. The iPhone was a game changer so it took of instantly. Something like an AR/VR headset is still pretty niche even today about 10 years after VR really became a thing.
This isn't really a "pet" theory — just economics. VR represents an entirely new product line, and with Apple's expansion into services, a whole new way to value-add to those services and entire ecosystem; capturing more recurring revenue. This price point is based on new manufacturing costs at a much smaller scale than their other product lines.
It's Apple, so it'll never be "cheap", but it can't remain at this price point and stave off competition for long. Within 3 years they'll either drop the price and introduce a pro version, or release an SE version, that'll still probably be around $2000-2500 — but bringing it within reach of the people who'd normally buy "pro" devices.
This is interesting because you’re correct that this is almost certainly a dev kit that they’re making people pay for.
However: this is very unlike Apple to do if it’s true. We ask ourselves, “What is the enthusiast or middle class user able to afford for good VR?” And as we’ve seen, consumer headsets are aimed at less than $1000.
So the plan is for Apple to put out an amazing headset with the best materials and best screen and eye tracking and all this, only for them to wait some years before releasing a worse version of this that still costs over $1000? I can’t see how Apple would get beneath this price point. And I can’t see how they’d justify themselves.
So your average consumer isn’t using this anytime soon. Did they just make a weird toy line for the rich?
They need to build hype, and if that means they are pushing a demo on walk-ins,then I don't have an issue with it as long as they accept a "No thank you" from the customer.
If you can afford it you can buy it, the purpose of a product does not need to affect availablility.
you’re either lying
Why go straight into calling me a liar? This just shows that you don't want to have a proper discussion.
wrong,
This is quite possible, I have been wrong before, and I will be wrong in the future, it happens, and is not the end of the world unless you realy fuck up.
or have an agenda.
I can't figure out any agenda that I would push regarding the Vision Pro.
In the end, it is a theory, based on resonable data available to me.
My work PC costs twice that. There’s Apples influence has nothing to do with my Thinkpad.
I’ve worked on workstations that cost as much as a nice car. Apples pricing only comes close because they charge so much for storage. When you’re working with triple digit gigabytes of ram machines it ain’t cheap.
Apple makes by far the best laptop out there. No machine comes close when it comes to performance and battery life. Intel has a decent performance per watt under load, but under light non idle loads it’s not even close. My Thinkpad is incapable of getting decent battery life. Lenovos 10 hour battery life is a damn lie. I get 30 minutes to 3 hours at best. Our work MacBook pros easily get 10+ doing the exact same workload. AMD gets close, but they’re falling down the same trap Intel has been for the last 10 years.
My work PC costs twice that. There’s Apples influence has nothing to do with my Thinkpad.
Please show me your $7k Thinkpad.
When you’re working with triple digit gigabytes of ram machines it ain’t cheap.
It's a lot cheaper if it's not made by Apple. Even the 8GB models are insanely expensive.
Apple makes by far the best laptop out there.
That may be but they're still not worth remotely what they're charging, and the vast majority of people buying them don't need them. They just buy into the ecosystem.
Also cloud computing is a thing. If there's ever anything I need a bunch of power for I run it remotely from my desktop at home or on a cloud VM. And my mediocre desktop will blow the M9 Super Max Ultra Megacruncher out of the water for most tasks.
Only because it's an Apple product. They could have made it stream wirelessly from your MacBook, and make it smaller and lighter, but then you wouldn't have to pay another $3000 for the onboard processors.
They could have made it stream wirelessly from your MacBook
yeah, no. People really don't understand how much bandwidth you actually need to stream even normal 4k 60hz video, let alone something like this. For reference, when I was figuring out how to dump my pc in the basement and have the monitor in my office, I had to run 12-strand fiber cables to do it.
you need about 20 gigabits per second for 4k 60hz. Or more, for higher resolutions and refresh rate - which vision pro has, compared to ~6 gigabits per second, that you need for your quest pro's resolution. That's why they make these.
And having compressed video streaming to a VR device sounds like my worst nightmare.
I've tried several remote desktop apps but the compression artefacts very quickly give me a headache. So I splurged for MTP cables and the display port dongles, and it works like a dream. Also, MTP connectors are pure fibre porn.
It's an aggregation of previous leaks. Malicious actors having all that information together is a big deal in and of itself, but it's not the"mother of all breaches" some publications are trying to make it be.
This, i keep telling people this is just a very sensationalized headline. Some of the companies listed here are definitely from breaches that happened over 5 years ago (ex: myfitnesspal)
The Naz.API leak that was given to Troy Hunt is different from this leak. That's also an aggregation, but smaller in size. What Troy has is probably more significant since about 1/3 of that is newly discovered. Right now, no one has published an analysis of the unique accounts in this larger aggregation.
Call centres exist because people can’t get the help they need by searching. Take away call centres, and you’re just making it more difficult for customers.
We handle support in our company as part of our day to day. By and large the bulk of support is people simply leaning on us, rather than relying on common sense, or using the docs. Only a small percent is what would be considered essential.
However, each industry is different. This is just ours.
Generative AI could easily help the bulk of our support load.
We're experimenting with retrieval augmented generation for early inquiries right now. We get hundreds of inquiries that could be answered by looking at the website/docs and Q&A models with extractive or abstract approaches, or newer generative approaches are good at handling them.
Looked at four models last week, 2 vendors and 2 open source solutions, it's very promising. Very high accuracy with extractive approaches to simple queries, an email answering bot that links to our live website, along with an offer to talk to a real person could help us out a lot.
You'd be surprised how often we can automate a customers enquiry with ML (not even generative AI). Humans are still there as a fallback, but it's a way better experience to give instant help to the person if possible and then put them into the queue if they have a more complicated problem. Searching is not really in the same context as automating customer queries, although I guess it could depend on the domain to an extent.
We use a home grown classification model for our customer facing stuff. There are some applications of LLMs we are using a SaaS for as it's quick to get going but we are also working on fine tuning an open source model as well so we'll see what ends up working better in terms of cost vs performance. That's not going to be customer facing though, we don't serve any generated text to customers.
If a request is simple and common enough that the request can be automated, then it is most likely something that I'm already pissed off about having to call in about since it should have been a feature on the company's website.
Yes but how often do you call? People like us make up like 1% of their calls, 90% come from people asking 'how do I download the Google?' or 'I saved a picture of my cat where did it go?' and 9% is people with general questions they could have found online but they didn't want to get into it.
Uhh they’ve all been outsourced to India for ages now, and they’re effectively useless. You’ll get someone who’s worse than an AI at understanding what you’re asking and cannot deviate from a scrip because they have no training.
I haven’t used one in over a decade, if I have an issue it’s going as an email or a comment on social media.
Every hour of every day, because company won't hire or pay for anything better.
Press 3 to have a representative call you back; You won't lose your place in line.
Sure. Meanwhile, I get on their website and try their weird "chat" support popup, that somehow takes care of the problem hours before I ever get a call back.
This is why people hate phone support. And why I don't trust and won't buy products from companies who only have phone support (or "social media", Facebook, Twixer). Give me a dedicated support email address, or something text-based (live chat, contact form) on website, thanks!
Weird. I’m only looking for phone support when there is no online support, or it doesn’t help, or can’t understand the problem, or there’s no keywords that put it in the right area, or for whatever reason is too “smart” so doesn’t work on iPhone. I don’t trust companies that don’t have call support, because they are more blatantly not supporting their products
Do you understand that providing some examples of the opposite doesn't show "all"? Your goal is supposed to be proving the examples I gave wrong, not adding new examples, because I'm not the one that said "all". So what we've learned today is that different companies are doing different things and that blanket uninformed statements don't contribute to anything. Cool. You good?
Oh and if you want to use the ampersand for etc you don't need the t. Ampersand is "e" and "t" together! I hope I've helped whatever goal you had in choosing to write "&tc".
My goal is to show that anyone can post links to news articles.
Unless you’re going to post some in-depth pubmed study or other reputable source of knowledge that shows categorically that the new norm is companies no longer outsourcing their call centres in favour of domestic ones - I will continue to think the default action these days is, as it has been for the past 2 decades now, outsourcing to cheap labour.
I don’t need to engage with them to know nothing has changed in this regard. Capitalism prides itself on seeking the lowest cost option at the expense of the consumer.
I didn't know who to side with but you've switched to a deceptive argument so I'm not giving you thy benefit of thy doubt anymore.
It's very clear he's using common English usage of all to mean significant majority, pretending not to understand this and trying to win on semantics makes it seem like you're an untrustworthy orator.
Can't even describe how shitty meta support is. I ordered a quest 3 and some additionals, they mailed me everything except the quest and something else I didn't order. Obvious mix-up, yeah? Well it took 4 different support chats and 6 different "specialists" over a month to actually process a refund, and they were still somehow stuck on the idea that the courier missed a box. An additional box under the same tracking number as another box that was labeled 1 of 1.
Never, and I repeat NEVER, buy directly from most manufacturers. For whatever reason, their customer service on the consumer purchase side always seems to suck. Buy from authorized resellers who care more about the relationship with their customers.
Did… my dad the used car salesman write this? Your post sounds plausible, but.. sorry, NO ONE cares about relationships with customers. Every last company is enshittifiable & thus inherently untrustworthy
I have experience on the reseller side of the electronics business. I will tell you that most big resellers (Amazon, Walmart, Best Buy, etc) will do more in situations like this than the actual companies themselves. I’ve seen it a lot. Sure, it’s anecdotal evidence, but I’ve also read a ton of complaints over the years on Reddit of similar situations.
These first party manufacturers are manufacturers first and retail shops second (or third) so they put less effort on that side.
Oh, I've been called by my cell operator today. Realized it's a bot when it offered to upgrade my plan because I've used more than half of it. It's 28th of this month FFS! I asked whether that's what they mean and why would I need that, it just repeated in the same voice.
Remember back in the early days of the internet, when FAQs had frequently asked questions, and were updated in response to calls? Pepperidge farms remembers.
that's probably the case with the majority of those still using win10 outside of 'enterprise' (corporate managed) environments. those upgrade 'offers' are quite effective at tricking people into the 'upgrade'
My computer is good enough to run any games I want to play, even recently released FPS types of games at reasonably high settings. Still not good enough for Win11. My weak-ass tablet, though, was upgraded straight away.
Yeah that’s funny how a gaming laptop with a beefy i7 can’t be upgraded but an enterprise laptop with whatever pitiful i3 can be. Even though gamers see windows as their primary OS, Microsoft clearly doesn’t see gamers as their primary audience.
We're maintaining and developing OpenVMS OS, and both we and our customers need Cobol, Fortran, and other half-dead languages coders.
Many large companies maintain their old systems and use them for production or data processing purposes. Sometimes it's too expensive to migrate off, but im many cases "it just works"
It can be viewed as a success. A bridge or building that only lasts five years wouldn't be considered successful, especially if it took monumental effort to make it in the first place. For some reason, we don't value that in software.
I wrote a Classic ASP app in 1999 that placed a web UI atop a mainframe application that dated to the late '70s and allowed easy navigation of really enormous data structures. I learned last year that it's still in use at that company; amazing not just because my code is still around but because that fucking mainframe code is still running.
I've worked in that area. It was broken back in the 90s and I doubt the crusty old parts of the system have gotten any better. I was tasked with writing a more modern wrapper for part of the legacy system, and when I asked for documentation I was told they had literally nothing to give me.
I was just an intern at the time so maybe someone with more clout could have gotten sometime to dig in a forgotten closet for old technical docs, but it still strikes me as a very bad sign when technical docs for a system every agent uses all day every day aren't immediately available on the company's intranet.
I know for sure several airports are using OpenVMS, and there are more we don't know about, as some companies keep running yheir stuff for decades not asking anyone for support.
And I'm sure There are multiple other old systems out there, it's too hard to replace them.
And they work! Our VMS stuff runs great, it's fast, and the uptime is measured in decades sometimes. So the problem is hardware: we rolled out the first production x86 version this year, so our users are fine (it's still an issue of porting your software, but it's not as terrible as building everything from scratch), but before that OpenVMS could run on Itanium servers at latest, and the platform was dying off since the beginning of 2000s, so it is a problem to find a normal replacement machine now.
And in many cases if it gets replaced it's for a system that looks fancier but actually has more problems than the original... See Phoenix for the Canadian government employees pay.
If you actually do have decades of fortran experience, work for NOAA. Their weather models are mostly fortran and they need engineers. Specifically the NOAA EPIC contract that i worked on previously definitely needs people knowledgeable in fortran and was 100% work from home. Feel free to DM me if you want more details.
My bosses tried to ask me if I knew anyone the could hire for a full time position at a hospital. I ask for more details and eventually they relent because they aren't having any luck on indeed/craigslist/temp recruiter.
It's a 24 hour on call position for 'up to' $55,000 to be the sole IT staff for a 100 bed hospital in upstate NY.
I literally laughed at them, but they seem to insist they are gonna find someone to take the job.
I actually think the job isn't even legal as described.
Sorry, not interested in 24hr on call until they start talking $100k+. That's asking a lot of someone.
Sounds like they need multiple staff, actually. You can't do on-call without having a rotation. What happens if Bob gets hit by a bus? This tells me all I need to know about them. Typical SMB "leadership", they lack any concept of managing systems - be it IT, finance, mechanical, whatever. All systems have their management models.
I work primarily in a Long Tail language (languages don't die, but they have a long tail where usage slowly creeps away). I tell the business that we could ultimately solve all the problems with the platform except for one: finding new programmers to hire for it. That's what will ultimately force us to migrate. Doesn't have anything to do with cost or ability to take on new features or handle new ways of doing things.
I feel this way about mainframes sometimes too, I had a class in mainframes but we weren't really taught about job options or where they still fit in the industry.
Oh, I'm sorry man. I don't know everything, I'm working there less than a year, but I only heard of VB a couple of times. In order of popularity it's like: C, C++, Java, then everything else
Prime example that for a publicly traded company the people buying the products are not customers for whom to create value, but a resource to extract value from.
Shareholders are the real customers for whom they create value.
The entire point of maximizing profit is charging the most while expending the least.
It's a game of seeing how low people's standards are and trying to lower them even further.
As customers, the secret is to have higher standards. Unfortunately, this generation prides itself on avoiding conflict at all costs so they just take it up the ass and beg for more.
"Every time a customer buys a printer, it's an investment for us. We are investing in that customer, and if that customer doesn't print enough or doesn't use our supplies, it's a bad investment."
You hit the nail right on the head. They don't see their customers as people buying their products, where they typically would be incentivized to deliver a good product at a good price. Instead, they see their customers as people being trapped into some sort of shitty subscription with them, like a cable or cell phone provider.
“To the extent a response is deemed required, Meta denies that its use of copyrighted works to train Llama required consent, credit, or compensation,” Meta writes.
The authors further stated that, as far as their books appear in the Books3 database, they are referred to as “infringed works”. This prompted Meta to respond with yet another denial. “Meta denies that it infringed Plaintiffs’ alleged copyrights,” the company writes.
When you compare the attitudes on this and compare them to how people treated The Pirate Bay, it becomes pretty fucking clear that we live in a society with an entirely different set of rules for established corporations.
The main reason they were able to prosecute TPB admins was the claim they were making money. Arguably, they made very little, but the copyright cabal tried to prove that they were making just oodles of money off of piracy.
Meta knew that these files were pirated. Everyone did. The page where you could download Books3 literally referenced Bibliotik, the private torrent tracker where they were all downloaded. Bibliotik also provides tools to strip DRM from ebooks, something that is a DMCA violation.
This dataset contains all of bibliotik in plain .txt form, aka 197,000 books processed in exactly the same way as did for bookcorpusopen (a.k.a. books1)
They knew full well the provenance of this data, and they didn't give a flying fuck. They are making money off of what they've done with the data. How are we so willing to let Meta get away with this while we were literally willing to let US lawyers turn Swedish law upside-down to prosecute a bunch of fucking nerds with hardly any money? Probably because money.
Trump wasn't wrong, when you're famous enough, they let you do it.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but it sounds like you're suggesting we side with Meta to put a precedence in which pirating content is legal and allows websites like TPB to keep existing but legitimally?
Or are you rather taking the opposite stand, which would further entrench the illegality of TPB activities and in the same swoop prevent meta from performing these actions?
I don't know if we can simultaneously oppose meta while protecting TPB, is there?
I'm advocating that if we're going to have copyright laws (or laws in general) that they're applied consistently and not just siding with who has the most money.
When it's small artists needing their copyright to be defended? They're crushed, ignored, and lose their copyright.
Even when Sony was suing individuals for music piracy in the early 2000's, artists had to sue Sony to see any money from those lawsuits. Those lawsuits were ostensibly brought by Sony for the artists, because the artists were being stolen from. Interesting that none of that money made it to artists without the artists having to sue Sony.
Sony was also behind the rootkit disaster and has been sued many times for using unlicensed music in their films.
We literally brought US courtroom tactics to a foreign country and bought one of their judges to get The Pirate Bay case out the fucking door. It was corruption through and through.
We prosecute people who can't afford to defend themselves, and we just let those who have tons of money do whatever the fuck they want.
The entire legal system is a joke of "who has the most money wins" and this is just one of many symptoms of it.
It certainly feels like the laws don't matter. We're willing to put down people just trying to share information, but people trying to profit off of it insanely, nah that's fine.
I'm just asking for things to be applied evenly and realistically. Because right now corporations just make up their own fucking rules as they go along, stealing from the commons and claiming it was always theirs. While individuals just trying to share are treated like fucking villains.
Look at how they treat Meta versus how they treat Sci-Hub. Sci-Hub exists only to promote and improve science by giving people access to scientific data. The entire copyright world is trying to fucking destroy them, and take them offline. But Facebook pirating to make money? Totes fucking okay! If it's selfish, it's fine, if it's selfless, sue the fuck out of them!
Of course we should have consistent laws, but which way should we have it? We can either defend pirates and Meta, or none of them, so what are you saying? Unless there's a third option I'm missing?
Are you really so naive that you think suddenly when Meta is let off the hook governments worldwide will change tack and let Sci-Hub/Libgen/etc off the hook as well?
Like I said elsewhere, I'd be happy to defend Meta in a world where governments aren't trying to kick altruistic sharing sites off the internet, while allowing selfish greedy sites to proliferate and make money off their piracy.
However, that won't change if Meta wins this case, it will just mean big corporations can get away with it and individuals and altruistic groups will still be prosecuted.
“To the extent a response is deemed required, Meta denies that its use of copyrighted works to train Llama required consent, credit, or compensation,” Meta writes.
Cool, so I can train my AI on Facebook and Instagram posts and you're fine if I don't consent, credit or compensate you either, right Meta? It's not even copyrighted in the first place, so you shouldn't have a single complaint.
I keep saying: none of this will end until we get a clean, cryptographically secure, government-backed way to ID who is sending us something, and it becomes an expectation to use it all the time for anything important. Which is why I have conspiracy theories about the conspiracy theories about government ID.
There's already a system for it. But to roll that out to everyone would be an administrative nightmare. And tbf, the system of digital certificates is not exactly "clean." There are always issues.
I agree that it would be great to have that, but it just doesn't seem feasible. Perhaps a different system needs to be created.
Here the more pragmatic use of truth is being used, which most of the people would agree in its objectiveness. Either the real person did the call or not.
Even in the philosophical concept of truth different schools of thoughts have different views on its objectiveness. Here is a better resource I think.
And I see you didn't understand your philosophy 101 course.
All the ideas we have about this stuff comes from a pre-science era and nothing we discovered backs up what they argued.
That is why Plato can make up another dimension and a psychic connection, that is why Hume could pretend to not know what cause and effect was, that is why Desecrates could think that if he has an idea it has to be true...
Something to consider for a moment. If you are really determined to maintain the stance that truth is subject that would mean this stance is subjective. Hence there must be exceptions, but your stance allows none. Any statement of the effect that statements are never fully true is going to produce contradictions.
Desecrates could think that if he has an idea it has to be true
That's not what Descartes said, by the way.
"I think therefore I am" was all about "I know I must exist, because I'm here to think about it". It wasn't about "if I think something it must be true".
In Discourse he sets about trying to establish what things you can know for sure, vs which things are subjective (and could just be a trick of the mind or an illusion). He establishes the first principle that the one thing he knows is definitely true is that he is an entity that is capable of thought (because otherwise, who else is doing all this thinking?) and therefore at the very least he must exist, even if nothing else does.
If you're of the position that truth isn't subjective, "Cartesian doubt" should be right up your alley. Trust nothing until you can prove it! Not a bad position for a philosopher to take.
I read his work thanks. He continues and "proves" god by mental inference.
The whole thing is backwards anyway. The physical world is the thing you should most be sure mental constructs the least. I am a lot more confident that if you light me on fire it will hurt than I am that there is no largest prime number.
Existence exists, and we can measure it. Theories are just models with explanations, laws are models without. Our thoughts are just as physical as anything else. Abstractions are symbols that sometimes match the real world. And I have no idea why nearly all of us fight so hard to not accept the universe as it presents itself to be.
Philosophy dictates truth no more than some Q-anon clown dictates how government works. Actually all you're doing is proving your opponent's point: philosophy is nothing but the subjective opinions of other people, and nothing more.
wow, if only philosophy had had you around thousands of years ago, to save them from all the trouble of thinking philosophy was something more than just some assholes opinion!
wow, it's so simple now that you put it that way!!!
🤦🤦🏻♂️🤦🏼♂️🤦🏽♂️🤦🏾♂️🤦🏿♂️
p.s. touch grass
This lolcow will provide you laughs for days and days upon first feeding. Endless gallons of lolmilk for the low, low price of one triggering comment and an epic shitload of anger and inadequacy issues on his part
Based, destroy the infantile mind of the materialist objectivist determinist this space is reserved for more future jargon tech-bro.
Truth is subjective precisely because I can say that the sky is red, and I will be correct. If you ever needed any help understanding that then you should've been paying attention to the difference in reporting between ukraine and gaza right now. It's not just "spin" either, I can plague you with misconceptions, turn you into a conspiracy theorist, warp what you think is really important in life. I can bullshit you, I can call a horse a chair, and I will be correct. Do you understand why there's no truth now?
Also fucking weird that the counterargument to "government issued crypto ID" is "well, we don't want the total death of objective fact, do we?". those two things definitely seem connected, those seem related. Definitely seems as though we couldn't just use another adversarial bot to run checks on whether or not any given thing is manufactured, entering into in a perpetual propaganda arms race that corporations and those with money and power are always going to win, in an unregulated and dystopian modern internet. All of which is what's already fucking happening. Seems like the solution to that would just be to double down on the police state tracking, which I would expect to be something that has concrete repercussions on the powerful, and never the common man, of course.
In the us apple, Google, Microsoft ++ are working on a common framework for this. (Shocking who are working on this in the us)
The EU has a citizens digital wallet program for the same purpose. These programs are also collaborating so that certificates and proof of personhood/citizenship etc can be exchanged between various actors.
The EU model leans heavily into privacy and user control of data, where you as an individual decides with whom to share your credentials, proof of personhood, etc.
This would lead to many possibilities, like for instance being able to confirm digitally prescriptions for medicine across borders, so you can easily get your medication even if you are traveling in another country, without having to spend time and energy getting signed paperwork send back and forth.
The most simple form of this would be that the system simply verifies that yes, you are indeed a human individual. But can be expanded to confirm citizenship, allow you to share your medical data with institutions, confirm diplomas and professional certification etc.
I already have to send photos of my id or passport for all kinds of services, so it wouldn't really be that different from doing that, just less inconvenient. Like, delivery services ask for a photo of your id.
Maybe it's because I get alcohol delivered at some point. I think it's the same thing though, when something needs online verification the workaround right now is to just send a photo of id.
Yes, but it's not Sybil resistant. Anyone can make as many PGP Keys as they want.
What is really needed is the ability to sign messages proving:
that I am a specific person ("I am John Smith")
that I am a unique person without revealing my ID ("I only have one account here")
attributes about me without revealing my ID ("I am 18+", "I am a French Citizen", etc)
This is all possible with ZK cryptography today if you have a trusted data source for the key storage. Governments might be able to set something like this up, but that comes with a lot of privacy concerns. There are other projects like WorldCoin, Idena, and Proof of Humanity that attempt to do this in a decentralized way, but they've all had issues with adoption
What leap? He said laws don't do anything. So by that logic why try? You morons need to think before hitting that reply button. It'd be nice if people like you go back to Reddit and stop shitting up this place.
No, fuck you asshole. He said words that meant something and I responded appropriately. Fucking idiots. I'm not even going to acknowledge your post since it's an argument in bad faith.
Yeah, we have all the tech already. PKI exists. Just issue a white house certificate and use that to sign official stuff - documents, press releases, videos. They CAN control their narrative if they wanted to. It just takes someone near the top who understands technology.
Wouldn't have stopped the fake phone call, though...
Isn't this the only part of this that's really important? If you can see me in real life, if I can give you a cryptographically secure way to check whatever I'm sending you in the future, badda bing, mission success. It's only a problem if my code becomes compromised on my end, leaked or something. It requires faith that your friends won't get compromised, but that's pretty much going to be true of any system you might devise there. That's not the job of cryptography, or some document the government has, that's just the job of your own personal security practices to make sure you're not giving around codes and passwords willy nilly. I don't understand why this really needs to be tied to the government or to specific people at all.
Sure, that works.. If you either change the entire american telecommunication system, and cut it off from the rest of the world.. or change the entire worlds telecommunication system.
But you're not going to get any of those, Which means your cryptographic phone system will have to be backwards compatible, which means skeevy fucks can continue to do this shit.
You don’t even need to ID who is sending it, just that the content itself can provide some grounding in an authentic source.
Like if a picture can say that it derives from an original photo captured by a camera signed with Canon’s credentials, and was changed in Photoshop in these specific ways and signed by Adobe…
There is a group working on exactly this. It’s called C2PA.
I used to buy FIFA and NHL games, once every few years. But they've gotten so shitty I just gave up on them. I haven't played a soccer game in years now. PES used to be a good alternative but I've heard it's not great anymore either.
I haven't bought any EA games in many years as well. I don't have any EA games in my Steam library, though I probably have some Xbox 360 games around. The only one I know for sure was Rogue Squadron II on Gamecube
Anytime you get to that length, you always have to think about whether or not someone will have a drive to read it, a computer that it works on, and matching programs to decode the data. Think about some of the formats we had in the 70’s and 80’s and how often people actually have that hardware and software in working order now.
Assuming the software isn't lost, then yeah, typically it can be emulated or reverse engineered to work.
The bigger hurdle is the hardware, especially if the encoding of the data was proprietary, meaning that even if you could get a reading without it, you'd still need to figure out how to decode it into useful data
That’s the only hurdle if you have the software and decoding both of which are emulateable. Which wouldn’t be overly hard to reverse engineer a connector if you have everything else…
Think about some of the formats we had in the 70’s and 80’s and how often people actually have that hardware and software in working order now.
Well yea, but it's a matter of funding and business/government desire. 99% of the time the only people who care about accessing things that old are hobbyists and enthusiasts.
If something critical to a fortune 500 company or government was stored on it and they needed it they would have the means to contract out a specialty one off device just to read it (Or contract out to a very pricey data recovery shop)
And software is software, we can still run 70s and 80s software through a myriad of virtualization technologies fairly easily and cheaply.
You want to make some money? Start manufacturing microfiche readers. There was a brief time in the 20th century where microfilm and microfiche was all the rage for archiving and even publishing technical documents, and now there's a lot of data people need for various reasons and no device to retrieve it on because they all got put in a room in the back of a library and got kicked in when someone backed into the room carrying a heavy box.
Real, good quality, factory-made discs, maybe. Anything else (from bad quality factory stuff to writable discs), not so much.
And backups where not done on factory-pressed discs.
Blu-Rays were more of a pain because of the format itself; Handbrake itself wouldn't do the job, I had to use MakeMKV to get a huge mkv file then wash it through Handbrake to compress it to an mp4. Not a single one failed.
Movies on DVD, out of ~300 discs, I had a total of 6 fail because the discs are somehow damaged, most were visibly scratched and wouldn't play back in a normal DVD player either.
TV shows on DVD, out of ~150 discs, ~40 of them partially or totally failed, many had visible disc rot. And there was definitely a pattern that boils down to "cheaper discs tended to fail." Older discs from earlier in the format's life proved more reliable, I think because, for example, my copy of Friends was purchased in the mid-2000s relatively early in the "TV shows on DVD for binge watching" era, some 60 discs in total, no failures. Smaller runs of shows that not a lot of people bought that were kind of plunked out on DVD for the nine people that bought them like Kolchak: The Night Stalker or The Greatest American Hero? 50% failure rate. An interesting one is my copy of Stargate SG-1. I own some seasons from an earlier pressing that came in individual standard plastic cases in a cardboard box, you know what I mean? Those were reliable, only one disc failed because of scratches caused by mishandling. I own some seasons from a later re-release in those slimmer 5-discs-in-a-cardboard-foldy-thing, and more than half of those are unplayable due to disc rot.
Meanwhile I have CDs made in the 80's that still play just fine.
Optical discs are already incredibly resistant and shouldn't be expected to fail in your lifetime. Most of the times they do, it's either old media (cd and dvd both had physical flaws in design), damage, or mistakes in manufacturing.
There's really no reason for the discs to degrade. It's just stamped plastic.
As an optical media enthusiast, I’ve done a fair amount of research into how, why, and when discs fail. Because the discs use two or more polycarbonate layers pressed together, moisture can sometimes work its way between the layers and speed up degradation, especially if a disc has been overly flexed at the center. Heat and UV can also speed up degradation.
Another problem is that plastic is petroleum-based and it breaks down over time. A lot of people think that the reflective layer (the metal layer) is actually the data layer but it almost never is. The data layer itself is polycarbonate, sandwiched between the reflective layers and more polycarbonate layers.
The newer discs like blu-ray movies are made with better plastics that should last at least 100 years. Depending on the dye layer of writable and rewritable blu-rays, they should last either at least 25 years or 100 years.
Pressed optical discs will last a very long time. The lifetime of burned discs depends on the type of dye that's used to store the data. Many of the early CD-R's would get corrupted after a few years, but that was solved a long time ago.
When they say plastic takes [huge number] of years to decompose, they're talking about how long it takes to disappear completely. The usable lifetime for most plastic objects seems to be only a few decades. (I don't know about the specific plastic they use for optical discs, though.)
techspot.com
Top