jakehansen

Holy AI slop. How does stuff like this make the front page?

Reading this, I cannot help but think about the LLM writing tropes that made the front page yesterday.

I have a feeling my brain chemistry has been permanently altered and I will forever be distracted by subconsciously rating the “LLM-ness” of everything I read.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47291513

> Your Wi-Fi router or switches only working when a license is active (even your LAN)?

We live in that world today. Most enterprise networking equipment operates with the licensing model.

I wonder how the “fingerprinting” will deal with users who access Netflix primarily through a VPN or relay service.

On Netflix’s side, they would see multiple accounts accessing the service via the same IP ranges.

Is there an easy way to understand how the lack of a reserve requirement doesn't turn banks into infinite money machines?

Edit: Perhaps banks are infinite money machines, but what consequences do banks face that prevent them from writing blank checks?

How else could you look up your unclaimed property without this information? I don't see a better alternative.

I would (naively) assume that if the government is confident that your address is correct and up to date, they would inform you of said property à la USPS instead of posting it online for all to see.

HPKE allows you to use private/public keypairs that are signed by a trusted authority, therefore enabling two parties that have never met prior to securely communicate. That is, as long as they trust the same authority.

Another major benefit of HPKE is a shared key schedule. Two parties can generate as many symmetric keys as they would like over a persistent conversation. This kind of provides ‘sub keys’, but within the context of a conversation, as they are not long lived.

GPG’s web of trust model is powerful but is limited in contexts where you have no prior trust. The world’s existing PKI structure, with a handful of root CAs, is already well established and trusted by nearly every device on the planet.

It’s interesting that the Tweet in question doesn’t seem particularly threatening. There has to be other factors at play.

In the tweet thread, the OP says, “I assume this is the tweet they were talking about”. Wouldn’t the police actually detail the threat in particular?