Skip to content

Reddit in talks to embrace Sam Altman’s iris-scanning Orb to verify users

Technology
154 121 583
  • 254 Stimmen
    14 Beiträge
    78 Aufrufe
    S
    According to the case website, it looks like it's only people who own a device made by Google that runs their voice assistant. So, Samsung Android users are not included, but anyone with a Google Home device or a Chromecast is included
  • Big Brother Trump Is Watching You

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    1 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Russia frees REvil hackers after sentencing

    Technology technology
    4
    1
    37 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    31 Aufrufe
    S
    What makes even more sense is that they now might be secretly forced to hack for the government in exchange for bread and water and staying out of prison.
  • Napster/BitTorrent for machine learning?

    Technology technology
    3
    1
    27 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    27 Aufrufe
    G
    What would a use case look like? I assume that the latency will make it impractical to train something that's LLM-sized. But even for something small, wouldn't a data center be more efficient?
  • 39 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    76 Aufrufe
    C
    I believed they were doing such things against budding competitors long before the LLM era. My test is simple. Replace it with China. Would the replies be the opposite of what you've recieved so far? The answer is yes. Absolutely people would be frothing at the mouth about China being bad actors. Western tech bros are just as paranoid, they copy off others, they steal ideas. When we do it it's called "innovation".
  • Cory Doctorow on how we lost the internet

    Technology technology
    19
    146 Stimmen
    19 Beiträge
    89 Aufrufe
    fizz@lemmy.nzF
    This is going to be my goto example of why people need to care about data privacy. This is fucking insane. I'd fire someone for even throwing that out as a suggestion.
  • 44 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    32 Aufrufe
    G
    It varies based on local legislation, so in some places paying ransoms is banned but it's by no means universal. It's totally valid to be against paying ransoms wherever possible, but it's not entirely black and white in some situations. For example, what if a hospital gets ransomed? Say they serve an area not served by other facilities, and if they can't get back online quickly people will die? Sounds dramatic, but critical public services get ransomed all the time and there are undeniable real world consequences. Recovery from ransomware can cost significantly more than a ransom payment if you're not prepared. It can also take months to years to recover, especially if you're simultaneously fighting to evict a persistent (annoyed, unpaid) threat actor from your environment. For the record I don't think ransoms should be paid in most scenarios, but I do think there is some nuance to consider here.
  • Microsoft Bans Employees From Using DeepSeek App

    Technology technology
    11
    1
    121 Stimmen
    11 Beiträge
    45 Aufrufe
    L
    (Premise - suppose I accept that there is such a definable thing as capitalism) I'm not sure why you feel the need to state this in a discussion that already assumes it as a necessary precondition of, but, uh, you do you. People blaming capitalism for everything then build a country that imports grain, while before them and after them it’s among the largest exporters on the planet (if we combine Russia and Ukraine for the “after” metric, no pun intended). ...what? What does this have to do with literally anything, much less my comment about innovation/competition? Even setting aside the wild-assed assumptions you're making about me criticizing capitalism means I 'blame [it] for everything', this tirade you've launched into, presumably about Ukraine and the USSR, has no bearing on anything even tangentially related to this conversation. People praising capitalism create conditions in which there’s no reason to praise it. Like, it’s competitive - they kill competitiveness with patents, IP, very complex legal systems. It’s self-regulating and self-optimizing - they make regulations and do bailouts preventing sick companies from dying, make laws after their interests, then reactively make regulations to make conditions with them existing bearable, which have a side effect of killing smaller companies. Please allow me to reiterate: ...what? Capitalists didn't build literally any of those things, governments did, and capitalists have been trying to escape, subvert, or dismantle those systems at every turn, so this... vain, confusing attempt to pin a medal on capitalism's chest for restraining itself is not only wrong, it fails to understand basic facts about history. It's the opposite of self-regulating because it actively seeks to dismantle regulations (environmental, labor, wage, etc), and the only thing it optimizes for is the wealth of oligarchs, and maybe if they're lucky, there will be a few crumbs left over for their simps. That’s the problem, both “socialist” and “capitalist” ideal systems ignore ape power dynamics. I'm going to go ahead an assume that 'the problem' has more to do with assuming that complex interacting systems can be simplified to 'ape (or any other animal's) power dynamics' than with failing to let the richest people just do whatever they want. Such systems should be designed on top of the fact that jungle law is always allowed So we should just be cool with everybody being poor so Jeff Bezos or whoever can upgrade his megayacht to a gigayacht or whatever? Let me say this in the politest way I know how: LOL no. Also, do you remember when I said this? ‘Won’t someone please think of the billionaires’ is wearing kinda thin You know, right before you went on this very long-winded, surreal, barely-coherent ramble? Did you imagine I would be convinced by literally any of it when all it amounts to is one giant, extraneous, tedious equivalent of 'Won't someone please think of the billionaires?' Simp harder and I bet maybe you can get a crumb or two yourself.