87 karma · joined February 25, 2026
You just published good content knowing AI will slurp it up and not give you any traffic in return. I'm now replying to you with more content with the same expectations about AI and traffic. Why care about AI or traffic or recognition? Isn't the content the thing that matters?
It's like answering technical questions in an anonymous/pseudonymous chat or forum, which I'm sure you've done, too. We do it to help others. If an AI can take my answer and spread it around without paying me or mentioning one of my random usernames I change every month or so, I would be happy. And if the AI gives me credit like "coffeecup543 originally posted that on IRC channel X 5 years ago", I couldn't care less. It would be noise to the reader. Even if the AI uses my real name, so what?
The people who cared about traffic and money from their posts rarely made good content, anyway. Listicles and affiliate marketing BS and SEO optimizations and making a video that could be 1 minute into 10 minutes, or text that could've been 5 articles into a long book - all existed from before AI. With AI I actually get less of this crap - either skip it or condense it.
We shouldn't cater to such users and make our communication less secure because people put off making backups.
Obviously there are lots of things to figure out, but I don't see how any one of those would be a deal breaker.
The potential consequences of mass surveillance come to mind.
Your post advocates a
(X) technical ( ) legislative (?) market-based ( ) vigilante
(X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
- for the specific forums, jobs and other things that may use something like this
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
(X) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
- if the credits are treated as money
(X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
- that will always be an issue, but I doubt it's too relevant here
(X) Extreme profitability of spam
- if someone spends a credit for spam and they think it's worth it, it might be an issue. But most spam wouldn't be worth it, IMHO, especially if it will be deleted from a forum, anyway.
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
- well, yeah :)
(X) Sending email should be free
- this isn't about email, but I don't necessarily like having to pay to post. However, lots of forums will remain free, as not everyone will use this idea if it's implemented. And some forums have paid accounts now, anyway.
(X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
- why should we trust the credit system - important question, as we haven't thought out how it could be gamed or abused.
This could also be used for combating spam elsewhere, like posting in forums, comment sections and so on. To preserve privacy, something like zero-knowledge proofs could be utilized. I don't know how the cryptography would work exactly, but if you can't double spend a credit and you can choose whether to keep it anonymous or not, it could work, too. It would be best if for a given credit spent, you could only disclose your identity to the entity you want access to, not the credit issuing entity.
For spam, it seems like the cost of maintaining a forum like the servers are much lower than the cost of the mods that deal with spam. So instead of paying the forum directly, we lower the need for human mods to spend their time. That way we lower resources to the forum indirectly. The credits could be per post or per account creation. I assume the HN mods' time is worth a lot more than the servers and power HN runs on.
Also, we won't have the issue that PoW and other proofs-of-X's have of being easier to do on some devices, but harder on others (like the power and time it takes to run PoW on a beefy desktop with AES-NI vs an on old phone).
But we'll still have the issue with different standards of living in different places making the credits more or less expensive for the user subjectively. Companies hiring worldwide could require different amounts of credits for applicants from different countries, but for forums this wouldn't work.
A solution to that could be issuers giving credits for local volunteering work. Clean up some garbage from the shore and get a credit regardless of whether you're in the USA or Bangladesh. But if you want to prevent credits from being traded (do we? idk) and, at the same time, have some amount of privacy, how would you do it?
But now you'd have to make sure that credit issuers all over the world only issue credits for real charity-like work. And who's to say how to value picking up garbage vs volunteering at an animal shelter vs donating 1$ to a charity.
It's interesting to think about this, even though I don't have any resource to implement anything like that.
That way I know I'm not giving money to some huge corporation and they know I think applying to their job should at least cost me Y amounts of currency.
And if they waste more than an hour of my time with the hiring process, they could similarly pay a charity some money per hour.
That was neither me nor the company will feel cheated and in the end, no matter how the hiring turns out, a charity will have benefited.
> On the other hand, if you have a sedentary lifestyle, working in the front of a computer, it is impossible to eat enough protein without eating too many calories.
Anecdotal counterpoint - I've done hard physical work for ~2 years. For ~10 years before that and for about 1.5 after I stopped the physical work I've been spending most of my days sitting in front of the computer with the occasional walk to the grocery store. No sport or hiking or fitness.
I don't eat TVP or other condensed protein food. I don't count calories or even consciously decide when to eat protein rich food. Sometimes I'll even just eat pasta or other food relatively low in protein and rich in carbs and calories. Yet, I'm in the same physical health as I've always been. Not athletic, but normal weight - the type of weight an annoying aunt would see and say "ooh, you gotta eat more". :) The first BMI calc I tried put me right in the middle of the green zone (yes, I know BMI is not that important). And I could return to the same physical work if I wanted to.
Besides my anecdotal counterpoint, there are many sources online you can find where people discuss their diet, how much it costs and their lifestyle.
> The solution was to extract at home gluten from wheat flour, to supplement the proteins provided by lentils or other legumes.
> any starchy vegetables, e.g. potatoes or sweet potatoes or rice, and any starchy fruits, e.g. bananas, had to be forbidden.
That seems very extreme to me. Were you trying to be a bodybuilder or maintain some low body fat or something while maintaining this sedentary lifestyle? I eat potatoes, sweet potatoes and bananas all the time.
> I gain weight extremely easily if I exceed my allowable daily energy intake.
If that's the case, why not spend some of the calories on exercise? Although I find it hard to believe that with my current and previous sedentary lifestyle I expend enough calories to not care what I eat on a vegan diet, but you gain weight "extremely easily". Do you have some rare disease, if you don't mind my asking? Cause the only fat people I know are the ones who overeat, regardless of diet. Even if they start blaming "slow metabolism" or something else, it's obvious when you see them eat.
> There are plant protein extracts, but those are at least 3 to 5 times more expensive than cheap animal protein, e.g. chicken breast.
Economy of scale and subsidies.
> There already exists a technology for making whey protein concentrate otherwise than by the filtration of milk, i.e. by extracting it from a culture of genetically-modified Trichoderma fungus.
Interesting. Although I don't see myself buying it, I'll look it up.
> fake meat
It's as real as you can get. "Fake meat" would be TVP prepared like meat. You wouldn't say "fake whey protein" if you extract it from genetically-modified Trichoderma fungus.
Could be a ploy to give the big commercial players more power while making life shit for FOSS and smaller players. I doubt so many grassroots movements gained traction around the same time globally.
Basically the idea is that if minimizing suffering is more important than maximizing pleasure, a world with no life would have no suffering whatsoever.
Regardless of whether you believe that, removing humans only would still leave the unfathomably huge amount of suffering of wild animals and after a while someone else will evolve and take the role of humans. However, if we leave humans exist, they could either destroy everything anyway (like with nukes or AI) or eliminate suffering like David Pearce and others imagine.
That's not true, though. There's no physical law that states that an X amount of suffering is required for an Y amount of pleasure. Nothing prevents you from taking a brain that's feeling pleasure and keeping it in that state. We don't have the technology, but it's not impossible theoretically. It's a configuration of neurons that somehow gives rise to qualia. Maybe in the evolutionary or day-to-day psychological sense we "need" suffering to overcome adversity and get stronger or not to become too content with what we have and lose it, but that's very far from a law of nature or a necessity in the real sense. And obviously some animals live their whole lives in bliss, others in agony. So it's not like there aren't any real life counterexamples.
Being vegan is cheaper where I live regardless of whether we factor in the subsidies or not. Beans, chickpeas, lentils and sometimes soy (examples of protein sources) are pretty inexpensive. Peanuts, some other nuts (in the culinary sense of the word) and some of the vegetable oils are also inexpensive.
If you factor in foods meant to replace or replicate the taste of a carnivore diet like vegan yogurt, milk or cheese, or things like Beyond Meat burgers, it might become expensive, but you don't have to limit yourself by trying to replicate what you used to eat - you can make lots of things from 10-20 basic ingredients.
In the current system people can vouch for dead posts from shadowbanned new accounts, if I understand correctly. It seems people do it, to a certain degree at least, because I rarely see good comments that stay dead forever.
But if lab grown meat is cheaper, some part of the population would buy it. The farms would lose part of their business so economy of scale would help lab grown meat and hurt the farms. I think it would lead to a feedback loop where lab grown meat will get even cheaper and farm meat would get more expensive.
With lab grown meat you also have the option not only for a perfect piece of meat, but for different kinds of tastes, textures and compositions that haven't existed before. Just like people eat processed meat (think ham or nuggets or deep fried pieces), they would love to try the new tastes. I know I would.
Raising animals for meat is theoretically doable with no suffering (not sure about milk), but it's not happening in practice. With pets the situation is better - a lot of people adopt and some care about how their pet was raised if they buy it from a breeder.
Society is only concerned with cost, regulations are weak and rarely enforced and companies are operating in a capitalistic market where they can't compete unless they squeeze every last cent out of each animal. That's hard to change as lots of people have an interest in keeping the status quo and the citizens who vote don't have the time to read everything that comes their way. We can't expect that society will wake up, that people will start voting with more conscience or that everyone will go vegan.
Lab grown meat (or growing brainless animals or something similar) is a technological solution. When it becomes cheaper than normally-grown meat and similar in quality, the atrocities committed in the farms would cease to exist as the farms themselves would cease to exist. The same market forces that are responsible for what's happening to the animals now would prevent any future torture.
Like, why would my comment (or yours, or any other comment) pass or fail the LLM check the I/you/someone else used specific prompts or another LLM to edit the output? It seems like these tools would work on 99.9% of the outputs, but those outputs likely weren't created in an adversarial way.
I'm using a new account and will likely use one forever, as I don't want lots of posts linked together, nor do I care about points or karma or whatever it's called. My first few comments are always shadowbanned. I also see lots of dead posts for new accounts with "showdead" turned on. A lot of them are normal, useful comments, some are inflammatory or just plain stupid. I haven't seen many comments that seem to be AI generated. Maybe they are and I just don't see it, idk.
Anyway, if a comment passes some basic filter (doesn't post shady links or talk about VIAGRA or 11 INCH PENIS or something spammy), I hope they still show up, even as "dead". On this account I copied 1 dead comment to give it more visibility and I've done it before a few times, too. The comment is still dead, btw (id 47262467). And maybe instead of (shadow)banning new users/posts, just make a separate view for old/established account and another one for all posters.
I would also be glad if I could solve some CPU- or RAM-intensive task as PoW. If I really had to, I'd pay with Monero or something similar, as long as it's an anonymous currency with low fees so a payment equivalent to 25 cents wouldn't incur a big fee. I wouldn't pay more per account (especially when I rotate them), as I've been a lurker for years and only recently started posting, anyway (so I don't care that much if I can post).
Finally, thanks for letting us sign up over Tor. :)
Even a single dead pixel would seriously distract me but he didn't even notice the gif of some disgusting medical scam ad showing elbows or knees or whatever.
He could also fall asleep seconds after hitting the bed. I need at least 10 minutes - at least. Sometimes an hour. Maybe it's a related phenomenon.
Some people just seem to ignore external stimuli better than others. Whether ads whose purpose is brand recognition work on them subconsciously, idk.
I'll read the links you posted a bit later, but for now I have a few questions that could help me clear some misconceptions I might have. I haven't used a rooted Android device yet, so I might be wrong about how it works. I've read about magisk and other methods a bit and am at familiar with the security concepts you wrote.
Let's say I give root permissions to a terminal app TermGood and I don't give root permissions to an app GameEvil. I trust TermGood fully - I accept that if TermGood is malicious or if it has some exploitable bugs, it's game over. I don't trust GameEvil at all, but I trust the OS to limit the damage it could do since it doesn't have root permissions.
1. Could I run TermGood with root only sometimes? Run it with root, close it, then run it with the normal restricted permissions. That's just to clarify how rooting works in general.
2. For MacOS you wrote "this permission also applies recursively to every process started within the terminal, greatly limiting its usefulness.". For Android, if I run a program like ls or vi from TermGood, will it be launched with root permissions, too? Will I have fully trust that ls or vi are not malicious or exploitable in certain ways (e.g., running vi on a file created by GameEvil that exploits vi).
3. Will GameEvil have any way to compromise the OS, to circumvent some security boundaries or to do any other damage it wouldn't have been able to do if I hadn't "rooted" the OS?
3.1. Would GameEvil be able to launch TermGood on its own without my knowledge? Or somehow piggyback on TermGood to take advantage of its root permissions?
3.2. If there's a bug in the UI layer (the "display server" - what Madaidan gave as an example) and I had TermGood open as root, GameEvil could inject some keystrokes into TermGood to read its screen (like the output of a cat command, for example).
3.3. Just because TermGood could have root access, does that somehow make GameEvil more likely to gain root access itself? On Linux, if there is sudo installed, it might increase the attack surface because sudo might have exploitable bugs. What could GameEvil exploit?
4. If I don't root my OS by any of the available means, what would my alternatives be for full control and customization?
4.1. AFAIK with adb you don't get rw access on / if the OS is not rooted.
4.2. Let's say I want to X (e.g., backup / to a server when it commands it to) without rooting. Would I have to create the app, then modify security policies in a way that would enable it to run without root, but with granular permissions for X specifically and nothing else, like permissions to read / and to listen on a network socket, maybe by changing the SELinux policies and/or the Android permissions of the app? Or would that be impossible? I don't really have a specific X in mind, but I want X to be as broad as possible. That's what makes it a real OS for me - being able to do anything on it.
5. If TermGood is compromised, it could reinfect the root filesystem after booting and effectively bypass Verified Boot. Or, if I used TermGood to change something on /, e.g. `touch /testfile`, would I be able to sign the new root filesystem? Ideally I should be able to control all the keys and sign the whole chain of trust whenever I make a change.
6. Android doesn't have FDE, so evil maid seems relatively easy (although any unrestricted physical access to the device should be treated extremely seriously, even with FDE in place). Is that correct?
Basically, if we assume that:
* I fully trust TermGood and the processes it spawns to not be malicious or have exploitable bugs;
* I could resign any changes I've made so I can keep Verified Boot working.
Then, would I be able to give TermGood root and keep my security?
OTOH, if you've witnessed how most managers talk about their employees to one another, it's with a cold calculating language. Sure, a manager may feel bad for firing an employee, but first and foremost is the business analysis of whether it makes sense to do so - just pure math and predictions.
Personally, if I was in a management position and an employee asked me for a cigarette, I would happily give it to them. In fact, a few times a week I give a few cigarettes to 1 person who is not my employee, but who I talk to from time to time. I don't gain anything from this and I give them cigarettes because they are on a tight budget.
Also, if I, as a hypothetical manager, realized a lot of my employees would take an offer for free coffee, cigarettes, pure nicotine, beer or another drug, I would give it to them as long as it didn't hurt productivity too much. Of course some drugs like alcohol could hurt short term productivity, but it would make them happier overall, which would have positive long term effects. If asked why I do this, I would say that I'm both giving them out of my good will and to increase productivity, which would be true.
If my boss gives me a stimulant to be more productive, especially a relatively harmless one like nicotine, I would gladly take it, as I like stimulants and am an adult capable of making decisions for myself. If I didn't, I would just refuse, just how I might refuse the free coffee by boss offers me.
I doubt anyone is forcing the employees to take the stimulants. That would be bad, indeed.
vabsbenz 34 minutes ago [dead] | parent | prev | next [–]
In ASL the white gloves spell out "Germaphobia leads to individually wrapped carrots"
I'm trying to understand why rooting Android is such a sin.
If I give root to my terminal so I can browse and edit any files I want, I'm placing a lot of trust in the terminal, sure. But trusting the terminal seems reasonable, as it's an important (basic; fundamental; necessary) part of any "real" OS. If I don't trust the terminal to not be malicious, why should I trust my OS? Anything could be compromised from a supply-chain attack. If we don't trust anything, we can turn off the computer and have perfect security, but if we accept that there's a trade-off between security and usability, we have to place some trust in some parts of the system.
> It does not matter if you have to whitelist apps that have root — an attacker can fake user input by, for example, clickjacking, or they can exploit vulnerabilities in apps that you have granted root to. Rooting turns huge portions of the operating system into root attack surface; vulnerabilities in the UI layer — such as in the display server, among other things — can now be abused to gain complete root access.
So if some app can somehow exploit the display server, it can inject commands on the terminal and hide the real output? I know the X server on Linux has (or has had) major security issues [1] that don't provide any real GUI isolation. Is that the type of issues Madaidan is talking about?
I don't know much about Android's display server, but if it's possible for an app without root access to exploit it, couldn't that app inject touch events or keystrokes in another app, or read the other app's screen? How would not having root benefit me if a random can view or control other apps without my knowledge by exploiting the display server? [2]
From what I gather if an app with root access has vulnerabilities, it makes it easier for another app (or other type of malicious code) to use it to gain root. But if the UI layer, to use Madaidan's example, has a vulnerability, it seems like it could be exploited successfully, with awful consequences, even if the malicious code doesn't get root in the end. So if I choose several apps to give root access to, I would just extend the attack surface from {all of the OS and its various layers} to {all of the OS and its various layers and those several apps}.
> root fundamentally breaks verified boot and other security features by placing excessive trust in persistent state.
I don't understand this. Could someone explain it with more details to me, please?
[1] https://theinvisiblethings.blogspot.com/2011/04/linux-securi...
Why is the glove photo claiming censorship? Are the gloves arranged like letters or something? Am I missing a joke?