duozerk

One has to remember they're crooks through and through. They're doing it by retoggling the checkbox because it offers them plausible deniability.

"Oh, side effect of a recent update, silly us, we'll improve QA, sorry !".

Or "once again our all-powerful models got away from us ! they did it themselves, the little scamps".

> The places I worked were essentially white collar welfare.

> One could do nothing and collect a paycheck.

Outside of startups this accurately describes almost the entirety of private entities I've seen, at least this past decade (from my impression it's getting a lot worse). Bullshit jobs upon bullshit jobs.

This is not a public-sector-only problem; in fact from personal impression I'd say private entities are slightly worse in that respect.

That's easy, you ask a LLM to do it

Wait patiently until their planet-sized computer gives them the answer they've been waiting for and then take their revenge

The whole thing should ideally have a quick modal with hotkeys when you first open it (and a small button to bring it up again if needed).

Non-profit Open Source distributions also and already package and verify open source packages (arguably often with a higher quality of analysis than Red Hat).

You pay red hat for compliance reasons (availability of a support you'll never call, mostly).

In other words it's a great clickbait title, yet still a bad title.

Thank you ! I imagined it was a cultural thing, good to know.

> Anecdotally, of my two EU (massive legacy French) banks, neither requires a mobile app. SMS all the way.

My wording was bad, sorry; but try to install their app just once. After that, I'd bet you won't ever be able to go back to SMS validation (which is what I was talking about at the end of my comment).

If not, I'd be curious to know the banks you're talking about (to consider switching to them, for one thing). What I said above is true of Caisse d'Epargne, HSBC, CCF, among others.

> Also, what kind of banking are people doing that requires an app? I genuinely don't know what it could be.

Close to every bank in the EU requires their user to have an app, for MFA (both for logging in and for validating transactions - transfers, payments). They use the smartphone's TPM. I have yet to see one that allows you to use your own MFA app.

The few I've seen that don't require it will validate the same through text messages (not everyone has a smartphone); though if you associate their app even once, you're screwed - the app it is from now on.

> I would only use it in a sauce if I needed to accommodate a vegan guest.

As an alternative, I've found methylcellulose to be pretty good for thickening my vegan homemade sauces (mainly tried it because I use it for other stuff, like fakemeat homemade protein sources). That's for homemade mayo or the like; for sauces in stews and similar, flour does the job - though US cooks seem obsessed by cornstarch instead for that use case.

Maybe google is an exception (but then again, maybe that payout was part marketing to draw more researchers).

I read this often, and I guess it could be true, but those kinds of transaction would presumably go through DNM / forums like BF and the like. Which means crypto, and full anonymity. So either the buyer trusts the seller to deliver, or the seller trusts the buyer to pay. And once you reveal the particulars of a flaw, nothing prevents the buyer from running away (this actually also occurs regularly on legal, genuine bug bounty programs - they'll patch the problem discreetly after reading the report but never follow up, never mind paying; with little recourse for the researcher).

Even revealing enough details, but not everything, about the flaw to convince a potential buyer would be detrimental to the seller, as the level of details required to convince would likely massively simplify the work of the buyer should they decide to try and find the flaw themselves instead of buying. And I imagine much of those potential buyers would be state actors or organized criminal groups, both of which do have researchers in house.

The way this trust issue is (mostly) solved in drugs DNM is through the platform itself acting as a escrow agent; but I suspect such a thing would not work as well with selling vulnerabilities, because the volume is much lower, for one thing (preventing a high enough volume for reputation building); the financial amounts generally higher, for another.

The real money to be made as a criminal alternative, I think, would be to exploit the flaw yourself on real life targets. For example to drop ransomware payloads; these days ransomware groups even offer franchises - they'll take, say, 15% of the ransom cut and provide assistance with laundering/exploiting the target/etc; and claim your infection in the name of their group.

> That's pretty bad! I wonder what kind of bounty went to the researcher.

I'd be surprised if it's above 20K$.

Bug bounties rewards are usually criminally low; doubly so when you consider the efforts usually involved in not only finding serious vulns, but demonstrating a reliable way to exploit them.

A more reasonable response than my admittedly slightly aggressive comment deserved.

Indeed, we'll see.

So you did use LLMs to write at least part of the software. I imagine you feel no shame, but it would be nice to at least mention it on the github page. It's a security risk.

As for your question, I don't know about the person you're replying to, but for me any software where part of the source was provided by a LLM is a no-go.

They're credible text generators, without any understanding of, well, anything really. Using them to generate source code, and then using it, is sheer insanity.

One might suggest it means I soon won't be able to use any software; fortunately the entire fever dream that is the ongoing "AI" bubble will soon stop, so I'm hoping that won't be the case.

> Something that goes beyond our daily vices of politics and religion

Religion maybe, and Wikipedia is indeed pretty awesome for many topics, but politics is THE bad example here.

Much of the political - especially geopolitical - content on Wikipedia has a tremendous atlanticist bias.

There is no "intelligence" in LLMs; they're text predictors. As far as I can tell the whole LLM technology has limited applications in entertainment and that's about it. "Hallucinations" (even that term is problematic, as it suggests there's an actual consciousness/person, or the seed of one, there) as well as other "failures" - in fact features inherent to how the tech works - make it irrelevant for basically all other use cases.

Tech as an industry already had an atrocious reputation but the moment the insanely stupid "AI" bubble pops I suspect it'll get much worse. Ultimately it's pretty deserved, though. At this point the bullshit is so strong one almost wishes for a new AI winter.

My bad, thank you !

As someone who exclusively uses emacs for all their editing, some nice topics there; though a bit miffed it's all video only.

Although this, from the page linked, was pretty fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urcL86UpqZc

Also misogynistic and homophobic.

And jailbreak that Kindle and install KOReader on it, too; now it supports epub in a much more awesome reader app (not to mention having the capability to install any gtk app - I have a term emulator with ssh on mine, among others). And you're now root and can remove the amazon crap for real, no need to use airplane mode after that.

> Sailpoint

Oh gods, the painful flashbacks.

Much of the soil in Russia that will warm is indeed acidic and largely inexploitable, which I suspect is what you were getting at; to their credit though, they picked an area that isn't (IIRC). Not that it changes much.

We're at +1.5C, more or less, and growing the usual grapes in France - of all places - is already becoming much harder (they keep dying of frost after waking up due to wild temperature swings).

At +5C, there is no growing food in any substantial amount outside of high tech, low yield approaches; approaches that depend on complex planetary supply chains (both for initial deployment and maintenance), which will have disappeared by then.

You can't grow food for a large population when average planetary temps are at +5C. It doesn't mean it's locally always +5C warmer than it used to be; it means you're seeing insane temperature swings in a matter of days, constantly - in both directions, it just so happens that the average is +5C.

Not to mention, at +5C it is all but certain shallow methane hydrate deposits (those stabilized by temperature, not pressure) all over the world are now outgassing CH4; not to mention several other similar tripwires, and likely not all of which we've even identified.

Edit: I can't seem to be able to reply to your comment below, not sure why. You're absolutely wrong about those Siberia figures, and they're not supported by current scientific consensus.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt you're not trolling, it seems you're laboring under the belief that, say, "2C of warming" means it'll always be 2C hotter where people live.

It does not. It means the mean will be at +2C. At this level of warming, we'd see crazy +15C / -15C swings regularly in many areas, often in a matter of days. It means plants that have started growing in earnest suddenly are in the midst of serious frost, killing them (something we're already seeing in my country in the EU, regularly). It means potentially many climate tripwires being triggered, too.

+2C is hell for tens, possibly hundreds of millions of people. And we're likely not stopping there.

At 4C of heating, you cannot grow food in any reasonable quantity with any reliability, period. 4C is the collapse of modern civilization at the very least (in fact likely earlier due to increased geopolitical instability and tensions due to dwindling resources, combined with the availability of nuclear weapons), with a massive die-off of humans along with it.

Despite the IPCC being very conservative/optimistic in their scenarios, this is in fact in line with their reports; admittedly my comment above might be badly worded - when I said "near-term", I meant "in the upcoming two centuries or so".

The IPCC reports say we might reach 4C, 5C or even more; based on the historical record, such a major change in such a short time - several orders of magnitude faster than previous CO2e-gases-linked mass extinction events - likely cannot be adapted to by the majority of species (there will of course also be a few evolutionary winners), resulting in potential extinction. I also quote the latest draft report from that same IPCC, leaked about two years back by concerned involved scientists to newspapers before the usual step where political stakeholders are allowed to reword the parts they deem too disturbing or against their interests:

"Life on Earth can recover from a drastic climate shift by evolving into new species and creating new ecosystems," it says. "Humans cannot."

> happening VERY slowly

> failing to move away from the cost in the next 100 years

Unless you're a time-traveler from the 50s who has somehow managed to post here, there is no excuse for this type of disinformation these days.

Mentioning higher sea levels is also a red herring; massive agricultural yields collapse will be an issue long before (like, this century) sea levels become a major problem.

More than this, we have now reached levels of atmospheric changes that put actual near-term Human extinction (not to mention that of most sea and land species) on the table.