Melody Fwygon

I’m going to be bold enough to say we don’t have as wide of an AI/LLM issue on the Fediverse as the other platforms will have.

I’m certain that if someone did collect data from the Fediverse; it would become a hot topic and it might not be enough data anyways as the Fediverse is not mainstream enough normally. So the data and language collected here might skew in a few imaginable ways that one might find undesirable for a general model of word frequencies.

Also the fact that people might not appreciate that data being collected. Let’s be real. It’s too soon for such a project to begin. The AI TREND MUST DIE as it currently lives and it’s corpse must be rotted away completely. Now, in internet time that may not be all that long…a few to several years…the memory of the internet can be short-lived at times. It must, however, fade from the public conscience into some obscurity first.

Once the technology no longer lies in greedy hands again; new development can begin anew.

Now we wait for someone to build an absolutely wonderful chat app on top of this wonderful bit of PoC code…

I genuinely hope someone does. Imagine what this could do if this was routed over Tor using Private Services.

Run this over that; and you’d have a bullet-proof text chat. Wrap a nice GUI client around all of that and you have a proper secure, anonymous messenger with no problems. With a little more build-out; you could even implement the Matrix protocol over this wire-line and basically have full inter-federation and moderation over a secure wire protocol; allowing for complete privacy and client integration.

TL;DR: Matrix over PQChat over Tor. Think about it. A Post-Quantum Dark-Matrix web.

Can it? Maybe. It’s not impossible; but it isn’t practical and most ISPs limit their shenanigans to grabbing your unencrypted DNS requests.

Will it? Probably no; aside from the previously mentioned DNS redirections; they’re not interested in most people’s packets, only in how many they deliver.

Should you care? I won’t tell you not to take precaution, but I do urge you to consider your threat model carefully and consider the tradeoffs. When Security & Privacy goes up, Convenience and Functionality WILL go down. Balance your needs. Don’t put yourself in a state of Privacy fatigue.

Are there easy fixes? Maybe. I think a VPN or using Tor would solve your concerns here anyways; it’s not required that your modem be running OSS that you can control. If you can achieve it; that’s still good for you; but it’s not something to be sweating if your modem isn’t capable and your invasive ISP is the only effective option.

I’ll just leave this here.

https://youtu.be/9xn0OHEZZ8Q

It feels like this vulnerability isn’t notable for the majority of users who don’t typically include “Being compromised by a Nation-State-Level Actor.”

That being said; I do hope they get it fixed; and it looks like there’s already mitigations in place like protecting the authentication by another factor such as a PIN. That helps; for people who do have the rare threat model issue in play.

The complexity of the attack also seems clearly difficult to achieve in any time frame; and would require likely hundreds of man-hours of work to pull off.

If we assume they’re funded enough to park a van of specialty equipment close enough to you; steal your key and clone it; then return it before you notice…nothing you can do can defend against them.

Yeah this seems like a non-issue to me as well; the source material for the models is probably the cause of this bias.

I also don’t think there’s a lot of sources for this manner of speaking. Let’s also not forget that there’s oftentimes instructions given to the LLM that ask it to avoid certain topics which it will in fact do.

Typically, using your own VPN should suffice. Depending on your situation you can do other things as well. If you are unable to download these tools on the school network in question; do not attempt to do so again. Use a public or other network connection elsewhere to obtain the tools you need to bypass their crap.

For example, NextDNS could be helpful. By running their client app; ( https://github.com/nextdns/nextdns/wiki/Windows ) you can make sure all your DNS requests are encrypted. Similarly you could simply set up a local DNS server that you point Windows at which can redirect those requests over DNS-Over-(HTTPS or TLS) to a DNS provider of your choosing.

The CEO is oftentimes a company policymaker; I think it would be foolish to ignore that fact.

I’ve been boycotting C-f-a for at least 15 years now; and I don’t tell my friends or suggest that my family eat there either; except as an emergency uber last resort. The gas station (burritos/sushi/hot-dog-warmer) would be suggested first.

My current partner(s) know and respect my feelings for the company and they feel roughly the same anyways; and so we never eat there.

What the fog is China smoking?

China is delusional here; literally drawing up lists of people it wishes it could kill.

Even weirder is the fact that they cannot accept Taiwan as a Sovereign Nation and keep playing these games with themselves.

Taiwan is not China. It never will be.

No. There’s no issue legally.

You might take a hit to your reputation with that company; but if they already were presenting enough red flags for you to back out of an interview; I wouldn’t consider that to be a problem.

If you cancel an interview it’s not a big deal. No money changed hands. No agreement was ever reached. Their emotional feelings are irrelevant; the whole point was to help both sides decide if you could work with the other.

I use an instance that does not display or parse downvotes or permit them locally.

So I don’t see the phenomenon. I don’t care about downvotes. I only see the upvotes; which are a far better indicator to me as to how useful a post I made is. If someone posts trash or extremist things; I block them. If they try to argue in bad faith or with far too extremist of a viewpoint, I block them.

The bot doesn’t always get the most upvotes but it does have it’s uses. As someone who has used the Ground News app in the past; I have a sense of their rating scale and I do find that it helps classify things; although you should always use your own discretion and not just blindly trust the bot.

But most people who downvote this bot, do so for completely wrong reasons. Usually they’re upset because they disagree with the assessment of the bot, or do not understand it’s scale. Maybe they don’t like their viewpoint’s position being laid bare for all to see.

Maybe that should be explained more; and there’s posts on Ground News’ website that EXPLAINS how their rating system works. Perhaps the bot should link them.

The issue with too many streaming services is largely the same as not enough streaming services

An average person will have a wide variety of favorite shows. Let’s say there’s 25 of them. For this example; Access to each of these 25 shows are non-negotiable to you and you feel you MUST have access to them.

If Service A and Service B are the only options; they both get to set the price. So to get access to a “complete” collection of content that you want you’re paying both of them $50 each. It’s most likely that half will be available only on A and the other half on B.

Now imagine that there are 10 different services. Each service is owned by one of the big ten networks that makes your 25 favorite shows. We will call them by their number from 1 to 10. Now each of your 25 shows have 10 places they could be.

On average; each network is likely to have 2.5 shows you like. Maybe a few have made some sweet deals with others; but no one place will have even 7.5 of your favorite shows…because these deals are costly and nobody wants to make less money per view.

Now each service; because they’re struggling to compete with each other will settle on a price of $10 each. But you still end up being forced to subscribe to all ten of them because no single provider has everything you want and no combination of less than all of them can provide complete access to all that you want to watch.

Even worse; any one of these ten can raise their price arbitrarily because they’re tired of competing and can’t break even. This means your total spend could be up to $500 eventually as they each creep towards demanding more money like a cable provider.

Your argument is irrelevant.

The problem with PPA wasn’t anything to do with the method it uses. Given enough announcement, discourse and investigation by the community; it’s entirely possible that users in general would have accepted it.

However; Mozilla did something very wrong by deploying this without asking the greater community. Point blank. That’s not good faith; and that did not allow for the community to go over the code and suggest fixes and express their concerns with how it works.

Instead Mozilla took the lead and decided it will exist; quietly. Without consulting the community. Given that this is how most companies turn selfish, that alarms MANY people who are knowledgeable about how Mozilla typically operates, and it undermines public trust in Mozilla.

Don’t they, err, already do this?

No, They don’t. They have stolen that initial choice from you by paying companies to be the “default” choice. They do this to capture those who are lazy or indolent about their choices, or to entrap those who are too un-savvy to change the preference.

Even if the punishment is largely symbolic and Google only pays a tiny (compared to it’s massive size) fine; I’d still call that a significant win.

• Google can be REQUIRED to give users A CHOICE of Search Engines.
• Google can be FORBIDDEN from giving their OWN ENGINE an advantage in search results or advertising
• Google can be FORCED to ALLOW THIRD PARTIES access to the SAME APIs used in Chrome and Chromium.
• Google can be FORBIDDEN from BLOCKING THIRD PARTY FRONTENDS from using Google Search, Youtube and more.

I use SimpleLogin; and for the most part they don’t show up like this most of the time.

That being said; I also don’t deeply do investigation unless the emails being sent from the alias vary from that alias’ purpose.

Typically as long as the emails remain from the same relative sender (From: field in header) and the subject matter of the emails do not materially differ from what I initially get on the alias; I don’t really fiddle with them.

But since the alias typically is a fixed sender; I also have them configured to include the actual From: header in the alias From: fields. This allows me to quickly block with granularity from my inbox any stray emails that might wander onto an alias without making it necessary for me to kill the entire alias. (Assuming the alias is still in use and worthy of preserving)

But then again I don’t have nearly the spam problem that most do. I have segmented inboxes for various needs; and my GMail catches most of my crap being the biggest inbox. Between SL and GMail spam filters alongside of additional inbox filters I have setup there; most of the spam I get is generally funneled to the correct place and spam is minimal.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ppm-dap#name-security-considerations

In theory this could be defeated easily if a fork of Firefox wanted to send lots of noise or someone decided to emulate many Firefox clients with false information.

I can say confidently that even if you don’t conflate the two; the Mozilla implementation can be broken and abused just as easily as the Google one can be.

I can already see how Advertisers AND Websites will collude and break this one.

• Specifically placed ads; targeted at specific website pages which a majority of their target grouping will visit.
• Generate an ad that will specifically reside on a page deep inside of the site; think 4+ clicks deep; which is intensely personalized to their target. ¹
• Ad will trigger; register “Impression” and be boxed up into Differential Privacy set by the DAP.
• Since that’s the only ad targeted for that specific page, any impression is an answer of 1 or ‘True’.
• Through microtargeting of these deep pages they can learn a lot about what people do online and could potentially break Differential Privacy.

1 - In this example the URI being targeted could be something like https://www.example.com/zhuli/do/the/* in such a way that when you visit https://example.com/zhuli/do/the/thing/order.php is always recorded.