iris2004

> Scientists tell us that the sooner we respond to climate change, the lower the risks and the costs will be in the future.

>> Additionally, “Science” as used here goes beyond the descriptive by implying an ethical obligation to act in a certain way.

It does not. The author is projecting.

It's a neat demo. I don't know how I feed about cloning the voice of a living person, even a 'public' figure like a presenter. I wouldn't be surprised if it eventually becomes illegal, although it'll likely be as difficult to enforce as normal casual copyright infringement.

Amazon is both a retailer and marketplace. If it prevents fake Coke being sold because of a secret deal, but is happy to sell fake Pepsi, then that is absolutely a problem for both consumers and sellers which should be scrutinised, especially considering its position in the market.

The future Google and others have in mind will require remote attestation for access to media/banking/social media etc. This is part of the groundwork. See also TPM 2.0 requirements for Windows 11 and rapid deprecation of Windows 10.

> Every ban erodes our freedoms, bit by bit.

That's basically reductio ad absurdum and a common refrain I see on HN. Restricting the worst dark patterns in software is not an affront to human freedom. Banning selling cigarettes to kids is not the same as Uighur concentration camps.

I'll assume for a moment it's not a rhetorical question and state the obvious - phones (i.e. apps) have been designed to be addictive.

It's not a failure of willpower but rather it's you losing (predictively) to decades of market research and teams of PhDs employed to exploit your brain. It's asymmetrical warfare. It's like cigarettes of the past except instead of chemists optimising addictive additives it's programmers optimising attention stealing notifications and dark patterns.

I doubt many engineers do. It's all little pieces that add up to fulfill a larger corporate strategy. I'm sure the designers of TPMs etc don't see themselves as part of a large scheme to fully lock down everyone's devices and have corporations decide exactly what people see and share. But their work is required for it.

They already have. They're sneaking it in via WebView in Android:

https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2023/11/increasing...

Carbon is disappointing and feels like a missed opportunity. It feels more like a syntax refresh. C/C++ desperately need a safety overhaul. I work in the embedded functional safety space. Rust has shown it can be done. Not having lifetime/borrowing support or something that achieves the same thing from the start gives the impression nothing has been learned in the last decade.

Scammers have recruited at least one victim to try to complete the fake withdrawal process for them. Luckily Kit and his team noticed and got her help. He was live streaming and only showed his side of the call. It has rather sad since it was clear the victim was very vulnerable (a lonely veteran with a brain injury who was being scammed for years).

> Can someone explain how the scammers are pulled in in the first place? That is, what's the 'funnel' for this?

Viewers send in spam emails. They also look for ads on Facebook and other Ad networks that pretend to be virus pop-ups or bank alerts.

After they engage with a scammer, they trick the scammer into thinking the victim has lodged money in a bitcoin ATM. However the receipt is fake and funnels them to the Gauntlet (the endless phone system and verification process).