sfdlkj3jk342a

If I wouldn't have to deal with the legal liabilities around moderation and user data, I would love to make a non-profit dating site that was truly optimized towards some benevolent goals.

And that's why need to keep using cash and non-KYC'd crypto.

If you don't want to play 3d games or run local LLMs, why is GPU acceleration important when you have a more than capable CPU for any desktop UI?

> It makes sense to always explain acronyms.

It does up until a point. Would you say the same about "AI"? What about "LLM"?

On HN (Hacker News), I expect that most would find a definition for AI or LLM to be redundant today. LSP is borderline in my opinion, especially when the context of Rust is already given.

> GrapheneOS has built-in encrypted backup and restore.

The backup tool on GrapheneOS doesn't work for a large percentage of app data. And it often silently fails to backup some data, so you don't even know where the gaps are.

There have been promises of a better solution for years, but I haven't seen any movement yet.

I really really want this for GrapheneOS. The current backup situation is terrible and nowhere near being able to easily image and restore the entire phone (or at least user data).

It's obviously a balance. But if you're asking if say 1,000 lost lives per year is worth it to save the privacy of 350 million people, I would say yes.

Just look at the 10's of thousands of people who die every year so that we have the convenience of driving cars. Not to mention the millions whose health are affected by the air pollution.

I saw one in El Salvador recently (they use US currency, including pennies).

That's what a username and password are for. I'd rather not be forcibly tracked.

I would have agreed with you a couple years ago. But a few motivated volunteer developers and some LLMs could do it (possibly along with some moderate community funding).

> I gather you believe other people pay too much attention to CO2.

Why would you think that? I care a great deal about the environment.. I've been working on several reforestation projects for the last 5 years.

I wish there was 100x more funding for CO2 emission reduction. But it frustrates me far more how little attention pm2.5 pollution gets. I live in Asia and see the effects that pm2.5 pollution has on 100's of millions of people every day.

Why do we put so much focus on CO2 emissions?

Sure, climate change is bad and has the potential to disrupt and end the lives of many in the future. But other forms of air pollution like pm2.5 particulates in the air are already causing an estimated 5 million premature deaths per year as well as a slew of other health problems including lowering of IQ.

So is it apparent that this backdoor was intentionally added by VIA for nefarious purposes? Or is there any other reasonable explanation for its existence?

A complete backup is solution that can be stored on my own encrypted servers and restored with a click of a button is really needed.

I always dread the possibility of my GrapheneOS phone being damaged or stolen and having to spend hours reinstalling and reconfiguring everything that Seedvault missed, as well as losing access to accounts that are locked by the secure element keys.

I agree that Matrix has a lot of problems, at least when used with the Element app, but I've found that voice calls are much better with Matrix compared to Signal over a flaky network. It was as good as WhatsApp in my experience.

I didn't claim to be an expert in this particular area of security, but I have enough common sense to know that remote attestation is not "critical" for a corporate network. Perhaps it has valuable use cases for very large companies that want complete control over their employee devices, but your claim is far too broad to hold.

> Do you debate vaccines with your doctors too?

If by "debate", you mean I take their advice into consideration and then make my own decision without blindly trusting them, then yes I do.

> Attestation is a critical security property for these environments.

No it's not. Every corporate network to which I've connected worked just fine without it.

Why not just buy clothes that fit properly?

I haven't tied a drawstring or used a belt in maybe 15 years, when I realized it was worth finding clothes that fit well. They're more comfortable and look better.

Part of me wants Chat Control to get passed so that there is more incentive for at least the tech literate to start using more decentralized messaging tools.

What's your definition of "abject poverty"?

I find it hard to believe that half the US would meet the criteria for any reasonable definition.

After seeing the pictures, I assumed they were moving into the mass-market budget EV sedan market at a price 1/10th of that.

$650k is a fine price for a Ferrari, but not one that looks as plain as that.

I'm surprised by Grok as well:

https://grok.com/imagine/post/8d1eab88-737f-4d46-ba92-9b6502...

Interesting that it does better at making the pelican peddle in the video generation than in image generation.

That just helps them classify the type of traffic. They're not breaking the encryption to see the actual content.

I can easily pay for a VPN service with crypto anonymously. I can also use a VPN run by a company outside my country of residence and jurisdiction.

Neither of those is possible with my ISP.

You don't have to go back 30 years to see it. Just take a shared taxi in Sumatra. Most of the men and some women will be smoking. Inside the car. With the windows closed. Sitting next to babies and young children.

Sad to see how only the big monopolies are allowed to continue hosting user-generated content because of regulatory capture.

Bison are less selective eaters and tend to spread out more, so they're less damaging to grasslands than cattle. They also require less water, antibiotics, and general attention than cattle.

When using the web interface for ChatGPT like this, is there any way to tell which model is actually being used?

> I think insecure/dangerous Claw-agents could be useful but cannot be made safe

Isn't it a question of when they will be "safe enough"? Many people already have human personal assistants, who have access to many sensitive details of their personal lives. The risk-reward is deemed worth it for some, despite the non-zero chance that a person with that access will make mistakes or become malicious.

It seems very similar to the point when automated driving becomes safe enough to replace most human drivers. The risks of AI taking over are different than the risks of humans remaining in control, but at some point I think most will judge the AI risks to have a better tradeoff.