traveler01

At this point im reaching the conclusion that Google hates winning.

I'd like to get more feedback, let me know what you think.

I kept getting “business proposals” and “invoices” by email that looked a bit too shady to open. Most of them were PDFs, which as many of you know can hide embedded scripts, phishing links, or even malware.

I wanted a way to safely see what’s inside those files without actually opening them on my own computer. I couldn’t find any service that did exactly that, so I built one: Seguradoc.

It opens PDFs inside a sandbox, generates image snapshots of each page, and uses Mistral AI to run OCR and produce short summaries of image-based scanned PDFs. It also checks any detected links or QR codes against URLhaus for known phishing or malware sources.

This comes from a real problem I had, as some of these PDFs were actually malicious containing phishing attempts. These are directed and personalised attacks.

Of course your browser sandboxes these PDF files but I'd prefer not opening these files at all in my computer - being sandboxed by the browser or just using MacOS preview.

Let me know your feedback regarding this tool.

My girlfriend also got banned from advertising on Meta for literally no reason. It’s been also a year since she last advertised her Facebook page (she’s a gerontologist).

They are probably banning most smaller advertisers and sticking with the largest ones.

Could the increased brightness of these screens help worsening the burn in problem?

I’d say the firmware has precautions against this problem. Could it be only a small number of phones with defective panels presenting this problems and people blowing it out of proportion?

Noob here, but aren’t the best tires made from natural rubber? Or am I mistaken?

Damn even in that Apple is copying Samsung...

It's always amusing watching companies committing suicide.

For sure this was due to some bug in the software, since must be some exchange creating the transactions manually and for some reason the change address was not set so the blockchain assumed the remaining was all blockchain fees (just a supposition).

Also, imagine having so much time to spare you create an entire website to hate on Web3.

Yes but they say if someone claim the funds they will return to the owner.

It does start to feel that you serve more your government than it serves you.

It wants to control everything, even how we spend our cash and how.

If you're using their content to generate more content, doesn't it fall under fair use?

For me the question is highly debatable. As far as I'm aware the training of AI works by crawling various content from the Internet, so they're using a product, which are NY articles to train an AI, meaning they're using their content to help creating a product.

But in this sense, shouldn't they be suing Google as well? Since Google as a search engine, also crawls the web and shows their articles in their search results, usually it may even use them for those quick answers features.

My 5 cents on this are that NY Times noticed OpenAI has deep pockets, they may have ground to sue and decides to try their look in order to get some quick easy money. Now, I don't know if what OpenAI is doing with ChatGPT does not fall under fair use.

Honestly I feel like I can relate to what you're saying. Hoping as well they find more information regarding this problem soon.

Bad design, not the EUs fault.

Makes the move by Germany of closing down nuclear plants look even dumber.

A country that had literally dozens of nuclear plants is now one of the biggest producer of CO2 emissions.

Real geniuses.

This is actually a great view on the matter and the same concern I was trying to express, maybe poorly.

Nowadays you can't really question anything that's taken as common knowledge. During Covid times it happened that stuff that were questioned in a year were disproved in the next year. Yet people who questioned it were treated like assholes (like it's already happening here). And then there's this hungry for clickbaits media that will publish anything that can scare people into reading their articles...

Coming back to the matter at hand, there's a lot of new battery technologies and I strongly believe that current evs will be able to switch from Lithium if a better technology comes. Also Lithium batteries are recyclable so they might become useful to store energy in the grid, though I barely see investment for it worldwide.

Nuclear for me seems more and more as a silver bullet, together with the various renewables and grid storage. But this is just energy production, we still have a lot of things to stop burning fuels that right now seem damn impossible.

Yes, I know that, what I'm questioning is the quantity of CO2 necessary to achieve that in earth atmosphere. Let alone be enough to cause it to overheat at this extent. Again, just questioning it not saying what's wrong or right here.

So you want me to shut up just because I'm questioning common knowledge without being toxic to anyone?

Considering how much money is being invested into the solutions, I would say that the change from fossil fuels will be great for economies and geopolitics. Specially since by going renewable/nuclear most countries are reducing dependence on crazy countries and may end up spending way less money on energy.

> "But wait, maybe this is all just natural cycles" is borderline willful denial at this point, especially on a well-informed site like HN. Might as well ask if maybe the earth is flat after all.

On such website dismissing someone for questioning common knowledge wouldn't be worse? :)

May I remind you people used to think the earth was the center of the solar system and they burned the person who questioned it. Quite an extreme example, but you get it right?

You're falling in the assumption that the studies being done are actually right, and I questioned that as well.

Germany stopped all their nuclear plants to go back to burning natural gas and worse, coal. So you tell me.

In my view the entire point should be maintaining the earth atmosphere in a balance that suits us. Too much CO2 is bad but if we remove too much will be bad for us as well. Right now the common agreement is that we have too much of it though.

Yes like I said in the comment. I'm for all that because even if we're wrong about climate change we got healthier bodies thanks to it.

I'm not aware of that, everything I read about climate change is pretty conclusive on the fact we're doomed.

Some scientists say we might have created feedback loops so even if we "solve" the problem, our end might be inevitable. Would be cool to see more positive takes on it but can't find many.

Also makes me laugh seeing environmentalists being against nuclear power when by now seems to be our only solution stop CO2 emissions (together with renewables of course).

The people who should be trying to get the solution are also making the problem so much worse.

True...

If you can't have an argument without becoming toxic, please abstain from commenting. We're discussing here and I literally put a disclaimer in the beginning of the comment saying I'm not pro fossil fuels usage.

I quite literally said that even if we did the switch to nothing we'd be improving global health, so in any case the outcome would be positive.