Skip to content

Most of us will leave behind a large ‘digital legacy’ when we die. Here’s how to plan what happens to it

Technology
47 30 2
  • 73 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    X
    I don't think it's realistic, but what they mean is that the community can in theory get together and decide to fork the code, collectively deciding that BlackRock's Bitcoin addresses are no longer part of their Bitcoin network. The BlackRock Bitcoin would be incompatible with the forked code. The result of a fork like that is two coins: BlackRock Bitcoin and Everyone Else Bitcoin. Every holder of the original Bitcoin gets an equal amount of both. It's a popularity contest between the two resulting Bitcoins to determine the price of each. In 2017, Bitcoin was struggling to scale. It had absurd transaction fees due to demand (just like Ethereum a few years later), and the community couldn't come to a consensus on how to upgrade it. 10% of the community forked the code to upgrade it by increasing block size, while everyone else opted for an L2 scaling solution. The result for holders was that they ended up with both Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash in their wallets. Weirdly, the combined market value ended up being higher than value of the Bitcoin before the fork. I sold my Bitcoin Cash immediately and pocketed the money, expecting the price to go to zero. It did not.
  • 469 Stimmen
    99 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    J
    Copyright law is messy. Thank you for the elaboration.
  • 464 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    L
    Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information. The law doesn't magically make open discussions not open. By design, social media is open. If discussion from the public is closed, then it's no longer social media. ban people who share false information Banning people doesn't stop falsehoods. It's a broken solution promoting a false assurance. Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true. There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies. Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down. Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed. Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify. If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing. It has a prepared, coordinated message. They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want. Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked. They aren't claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.
  • 131 Stimmen
    67 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    I
    Arcing causes more fires, because over current caused all the fires until we tightened standards and dual-mode circuit breakers. Now fires are caused by loose connections arcing, and damaged wires arcing to flammable material. Breakers are specifically designed for a sustained current, but arcing is dangerous because it tends to cascade, light arcing damages contacts, leading to more arcing in a cycle. The real danger of arcing is that it can happen outside of view, and start fires that aren't caught till everything burns down.
  • 30 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    S
    The thing about compelling lies is not that they are new, just that they are easier to expand. The most common effect of compelling lies is their ability to get well-intentioned people to support malign causes and give their money to fraudsters. So, expect that to expand, kind of like it already has been. The big question for me is what the response will be. Will we make lying illegal? Will we become a world of ever more paranoid isolationists, returning to clans, families, households, as the largest social group you can trust? Will most people even have the intelligence to see what is happenning and respond? Or will most people be turned into info-puppets, controlled into behaviours by manipulation of their information diet to an unprecedented degree? I don't know.
  • 1 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    L
    I think the principle could be applied to scan outside of the machine. It is making requests to 127.0.0.1:{port} - effectively using your computer as a "server" in a sort of reverse-SSRF attack. There's no reason it can't make requests to 10.10.10.1:{port} as well. Of course you'd need to guess the netmask of the network address range first, but this isn't that hard. In fact, if you consider that at least as far as the desktop site goes, most people will be browsing the web behind a standard consumer router left on defaults where it will be the first device in the DHCP range (e.g. 192.168.0.1 or 10.10.10.1), which tends to have a web UI on the LAN interface (port 8080, 80 or 443), then you'd only realistically need to scan a few addresses to determine the network address range. If you want to keep noise even lower, using just 192.168.0.1:80 and 192.168.1.1:80 I'd wager would cover 99% of consumer routers. From there you could assume that it's a /24 netmask and scan IPs to your heart's content. You could do top 10 most common ports type scans and go in-depth on anything you get a result on. I haven't tested this, but I don't see why it wouldn't work, when I was testing 13ft.io - a self-hosted 12ft.io paywall remover, an SSRF flaw like this absolutely let you perform any network request to any LAN address in range.
  • 163 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    stroz@infosec.pubS
    Move fast and break people
  • The Enshitification of Youtube’s Full Album Playlists

    Technology technology
    3
    1
    108 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    dual_sport_dork@lemmy.worldD
    Especially when the poster does not disclose that it's AI. The perpetual Youtube rabbit hole occasionally lands on one of these for me when I leave it unsupervised, and usually you can tell from the "cover" art. But only if you're looking at it. Because if you just leave it going in the background eventually you start to realize, "Wow, this guy really tripped over the fine line between a groove and rut." Then you click on it and look: Curses! Foiled again. And golly gee, I'm sure glad Youtube took away the option to oughtright block channels. I'm sure that's a total coincidence. W/e. I'm a have-it-on-my-hard-drive kind of bird. Yt-dlp is your friend. Just use it to nab whatever it is you actually want and let your own media player decide how to shuffle and present it. This works great for big name commercial music as well, whereupon the record labels are inevitably dumb enough to post songs and albums in their entirety right there you Youtube. Who even needs piracy sites at that rate? Yoink!