The main difference is that 1Password requires two pieces of information for decrypting your passwords while Bitwarden requires only one.
Requiring an additional secret in the form of a decryption key has both upsides and downsides:
if someone somehow gets access to your master password, they won’t be able to decrypt your passwords unless they also got access to your secret key (or one of your trusted devices)
a weak master password doesn’t automatically make you vulnerable
if you lose access to your secret key, your passwords are not recoverable
additional effort to properly secure your key
So whether you want both or only password protection is a trade-off between the additional protection the key offers and the increased complexity of adequately securing it.
Your proposed scenarios of the master password being brute forced or the servers being hacked and your master password acquired when using Bitwarden are misleading.
Brute forcing the master password is not feasible, unless it is weak (too short, common, or part of a breach). By default, Bitwarden protects against brute force attacks on the password itself using PBKDF2 with 600k iterations. Brute forcing AES-256 (to get into the vault without finding the master password) is not possible according to current knowledge.
Your master password cannot be “acquired” if the Bitwarden servers are hacked.
They store the (encrypted) symmetric key used to decrypt your vault as well as your vault (where all your passwords are stored), AES256-encrypted using said symmetric key.
This symmetric key is itself AES256-encrypted using your master password (this is a simplification) before being sent to their servers.
Neither your master password nor the symmetric key used to decrypt your password vault is recoverable from Bitwarden servers by anyone who doesn’t know your master password and by extension neither are the passwords stored in your encrypted vault.
This works as a general guideline, but sometimes you aren’t able to write the code in a way that truly self-documents.
If you come back to a function after a month and need half an hour to understand it, you should probably add some comments explaining what was done and why it was done that way (in addition to considering if you should perhaps rewrite it entirely).
If your code is going to be used by third parties, you almost always need more documentation than the raw code.
Yes documentation can become obsolete. So constrain its use to cases where it actually adds clarity and commit to keeping it up to date with the evolving code.
If their password was actually good (18+ random characters) it’s not feasible with current day technology to brute force, no matter how few PBKDF2 iterations were used.
Obviously it’s still a big issue because in many cases people don’t use strong enough passwords (and apparently LastPass stored some of the information in plaintext) but a strong password is still good protection provided the encryption algorithm doesn’t have any known exploitable weaknesses.
It’s a big deal IMO, particularly because at login it doesn’t do the same. From the user perspective, your password has effectively been modified without your knowledge and no reasonable way of finding out. Good luck getting access to your account.
When a bank does this it should be considered gross negligence.
There’s no need for something that complex.
Someone with access to a chess engine watches the game and inputs the moves into the engine as they’re played. If there’s a critical move (only 1 or very few of the options are winning/don’t throw the game) they send a simple signal to let him know. That can be enough to give you an advantage at that level. If you really want, you could send a number between 1 and 6 to represent which piece the engine prefers to move, but it’s likely not necessary.
That said, all the evidence he actually did anything like that is at best circumstantial (mostly statistical evidence supposedly showing how unlikely his performance was given his past performance and rating at the time, as well as known instances of past cheating by him - though the only confirmed ones were several years ago when he was still a kid and online rather than in person).
Extra steps that guarantee you don’t accidentally treat an integer as if it were a string or an array and get a runtime exception.
With generics, the compiler can prove that the thing you’re passing to that function is actually something the function can use.
Really what you’re doing if you’re honest, is doing the compiler’s work: hmm inside this function I access this field on this parameter. Can I pass an argument of such and such type here? Lemme check if it has that field. Forgot to check? Or were mistaken? Runtime error! If you’re lucky, you caught it before production.
Not to mention that types communicate intent. It’s no fun trying to figure out how to use a library that has bad/missing documentation. But it’s a hell of a lot easier if you don’t need to guess what type of arguments its functions can handle.
The owning class has interests directly opposed to the working class, which makes that “natural” trait toxic to the working class. In addition, the owning class has a lot more power.
Your landlord wants to make as much money as possible for as long as possible. (fair enough right?) The problem is that for that to happen
demand needs to stay high or go higher which means that
supply needs to stay low which means that (at the level of class interests, not personal belief)
Your landlord doesn’t want new affordable housing to be built in your area. They want you to never own a house, never have any cheaper rent options. They don’t want to have to keep renting to you at the price you are paying now.
They don’t want to have to invest money in making your apartment/house safe or comfortable.
The problem is not that people will put their own wellbeing above yours, it’s that their wellbeing is in conflict with yours. A conflict of interests between classes… class conflict… class warfare. And they have all the guns.
It doesn’t have to be this way.
It’s almost like their class interests changed and class interests influence behavior.
Almost like it’s proving their point. Capitalist critique is not about individual “bad” people but about a system with perverse and harmful incentives.
(granting your claim for sake of argument - feel free to support it with data)
“They have all the guns” is a metaphor in the context of class warfare.
I mean that they have the means to employ force (usually through police, but not exclusively) in their interest as well as having the entire power of the state behind them (disproportionate wealth means they have disproportionate political influence which means they can lobby for laws to be adjusted in their favor. Even when the law seems just, it is rarely applied in the same way to wealthy people in practice).
Not to mention that they can and do buy influence over the media apparatus, controlling narratives and tricking the working class into acting against their own interests.
Within the framework of class conflict, those are the “guns”.
The “villain” in this situation is a system that allows a minority of people to attain huge amounts of wealth and power and incentivizes them to keep increasing both as much as possible without regards for others. It’s not the people that follow the incentives.
Unfortunately one of the incentives when you’re part of the owning class is wanting to perpetuate the system: it’s working pretty well for you.
Individual members of the owning class can be great people. But as the original comment stated: most people will usually put their own interests above yours. The problem isn’t that they do so, the problem is that their interests are in opposition to yours.
The analysis isn’t (as you seem to think) at the level of “you’re part of the owning class, therefore you’re evil and we hate you”, but “there should be no owning class, its existence leads to needless conflict and suffering”.
Let’s not get it twisted though: while the real villain is capitalism, it’s always one class that does all the stealing, and the lying, and the gaslighting, and the manipulating, and the cheating.
Power corrupts.
I want to first point out that the government being corruptible is not a problem that capitalism just solves. Almost all countries today are capitalist, and that doesn’t prevent their governments from being totalitarian or corrupt or mismanaging their resources (Russia as an example).
The government still has all the power. But now there’s a small group of people who can influence that power (let’s not kid ourselves - mainly through corruption) to the detriment of everyone else.
A centrally managed economy is not the only alternative.
Workers of an organization can be the owners of that organization, rather than a few wealthy elites or the government. That way, they see the fruits of their labor rather than it being syphoned off. They have a say in how the organization is run, they can vote on who manages it and replace them when the way it’s managed is bad for the workers.
Let’s say ownership of a company automatically goes from its founders to all workers (this might well include the founders) when it reaches a certain size.
What would incentivize anyone to try to start a company in such an environment? Why not guarantee the founders a certain percentage of the profits even if they decide to stop working when the company changes ownership? Where does the capital come from to build a company in the first place? Government - hear me out. Taxes still exist, and continue to pay for things like infrastructure and healthcare and education and housing (these things are probably better managed by government than markets). And part of the tax revenue goes into an investment fund that is managed locally (think city, and/or county level). Citizens have direct voting power over what projects get financed with their taxes.
More pragmatically, a first (I would say reasonable) step would be to limit the amount of power an individual can get. Nobody needs a billion dollars to live, much less hundreds. Change the incentives: implement aggressive progressive taxes.
Heavily tax vacant houses and invest in affordable housing. Stop subsidizing the aviation industry and the fossil fuel industry and the meat industry and instead invest in healthcare and education and public transport and farmers.
Capitalism is a nightmare without regulation. Simply start by adding more (good) regulation and enforcing it consistently.
A cursory read suggests that ownership increases job satisfaction and commitment, though the correlation with job satisfaction is less strong. Overall a positive, perhaps mild effect on employee happiness and potentially positive effect on firm performance.
So your suspicion that ownership doesn’t have a strong effect on employee happiness seems to bear out.
My main argument wasn’t about individual employee satisfaction though. The point was that worker ownership of organizations gets rid of the owning class (effectively: if everyone is an owner, the class conflict dissolves) while keeping markets and competition, making central planning less relevant.
I was trying to suggest approaches that are neither radical nor utopian, and like you pointed out yourself, that we already employ effectively. The main proposed difference is scale: past a certain size, all companies would be worker owned.
I don’t think markets are bad. Uncontrolled concentration of wealth is.
I’m skeptical of the claim that well-regulated capitalism is the best option, but depending on just how well-regulated it is, I agree that it can be a good option.
Though one might argue at that point whether you’re really still talking about capitalism. For instance, the main characteristic I have an issue with is capital accumulation. If we regulate that one out I think we’re going to get much better outcomes. Would the result still be considered capitalism?
The problem with just regulating capitalism while keeping the core mechanisms is that if wealth accumulation is still allowed to happen, resources will tend to concentrate in the hands of a few. This is not only inequitable and wasteful but more importantly it gives them power, which they will inevitably try to use to chip away at the regulations.
I mostly agree with your points on housing. On health I’ll say that many of the issues you mention are either the result of or at least exacerbated by the influence of capital on government.
I think conflating capitalism with trade is wrong. Trade (and markets) existed long before modern capitalism. So did the concept of money.
I agree that the way you described it, it sounds very natural (not that that really is an argument, but whatever).
But the reality of capitalism is that the Y I’m buying from my profits is not some other commodity (as your example implies).
Y is someone else’s business that also sells X. Or some completely unrelated business that sells Z. Or Y is a bribe to the mayor so that the city buys all its X from me, even though I don’t have the best quality or price. Or it’s a “donation” to the new mayor’s campaign, leading him to remove the rule that one person can not own more than 3 homes in the city, so I can buy more houses and rent them out and make more profit.
It’s capital I use to open X businesses in other cities. Maybe someone already sells X there and the local citizens quite like their service. They don’t care for my X. But I have enough capital to start aggressively underselling, at a loss to myself. Now it doesn’t matter that my service is worse, or that the people had some loyalty to the local X seller. I’m selling at half the price, it’s a no-brainer to buy from me. I wait a few months and the local X seller is now out of business. I can raise my prices back up, nice. This works quite well, I’ll repeat it in other cities. If someone catches on and complains, I’ll just bribe the mayor to look the other way. Or I’ll buy the local newspaper and have them paint me in a positive light.
I agree that blindly throwing money at a problem is not a good solution. Unfortunately this basic insight is often abused into an argument that spending on social programs shouldn’t be increased at all, or worse should be decreased.
Well targeted social spending is actually profitable for the government. Healthy, housed, educated citizens produce a lot of value.
Agreed. But capitalism provides both the incentives and the means for corruption.
Why do you think it is that punishments are minor and sporadically enforced? Could it have something to do with people who have so much money that they can influence laws?
Do you think it’s unreasonable to say, as a way to combat monopolies and corruption: “You can’t have that much money. There’s clearly no other use for such sums than gaining undue power. Past [insert specific net worth maximum], 100% of what you make will be taxed and/or distributed to your workers”?.
Yes, there are always incentives for corruption. But capitalism ads to and intensifies those incentives. People with unfathomable amounts of wealth have power over others. And they’re not elected, you can’t vote them out. They can fuck your life and there’s really not much you can do about it.
Maybe the richest people don’t “make anything” until the asset is sold, but their incredible net worth still gives them power. That’s the issue at the end of the day.
Many critics of anti-capitalists seem to think workers are envious of the money that the ultra-wealthy have. I don’t think this is the case.
It would perhaps make sense to be envious of millionaires who can afford anything their heart desires and don’t have to work at a job they hate in order to be financially secure. I think for most people, that second part would already be more than enough. But to be envious of billionaires? I think this is not the norm. What billionaires have over millionaires is power. Most people don’t want power, they just want a happy, meaningful life.
The problem with capitalism is that it facilitates and encourages those few that do want power. For most of them it would be more beneficial for society if they didn’t get it.
The rich are already hiding their wealth. Trillions in offshore accounts suggests they don’t need to be taxed aggressively in order to try to hoard their money like dragons.
Again, I was suggesting we don’t let it get that far. What’s the billion dollar asset you can’t make liquid? A company? If it’s that valuable you should simply not be allowed to own/control it alone. Really, if it’s that big it should be broken up in the first place.
Where does the money go? To the government, same as it does now.
I’m not really sure I understand the hand greasing fear: the government gets the money anyway, it’s in the law. What’s the scenario here? Rich guy bribes IRS bureaucrat to not take his money? That will be a lot harder when the rich guy doesn’t have billions and the IRS bureaucrat has enough money (and good enough social support) for a comfortable life.
I also think speculation isn’t good and we should get rid of it. I really don’t care about your $600 sneakers and neither should the government. But at a scale that matters (not hundreds but hundreds of thousands - if you’re buying 1000 sneakers you’re also not in the clear) you should not be allowed to buy things for the purpose of re-selling them, except if you’re actually providing a service (like a supermarket, for example) - and even then I think there should be limits on how much you’re allowed to mark up the products vs. what you paid for them. I think in general there should be a cap on margins. You shouldn’t be able to ask for 10x what it cost you to make a product, especially if you make millions of them.
We’re talking past each other a bit I think. I’ve been trying to convince you that having billionaires is bad and we should have a world where they don’t exist. I’m not sure that I have, but now you seem mostly concerned about how we get there.
When I said the money goes to the government, I meant profits past a certain net worth. I concede that this is more complicated for unrealized gains. So here’s a tentative solution: if you have unrealized gains that are worth more than the threshold, you’re forced to realize the amount you’re over at the current market price and your profit gets taxed. This would be the process when we’re already in the new system, without billionaires.
If we’re talking about the process of getting rid of billionaires: are you a billionaire? No? Do you have enough shares of Apple where you, perhaps with the cooperation of 5 other shareholders, outvote all other shareholders? Or can exercise strong pressure on the board/CEO? No? Then I don’t think anyone should be coming for your shares.
But if the answer to one of those questions is yes, all your shares past the threshold are divided among the workers employed by Apple. If you’re worried your remaining shares will go down in value in the future, just sell them now. Maybe you’re even allowed to sell a certain percentage before your shares are redistributed.
For discussion’s sake, my own idea of a decent threshold would be in the tens of millions. Perhaps $80M. It’s arbitrary and I’m not particularly committed to that number. But you best believe I’m nowhere near worth that. And neither are 99.9% of people. It would of course be kept in line with inflation.
If we’re still talking about the initial asset seizure with the sneakers. If I own 10% of a $1T company, I have a net worth of $100B. I’m not taxed 90% of that, $99_920_000_000 (99.92% in this case) worth of the stock is divided among the employees of that company. If I want, I can sell $80M worth of stock before that, but anything that brings my net worth (excluding my remaining stock) over $80M gets taxed at 100%.
If the stock doesn’t appreciate in price and my net worth didn’t increase in some other way, I’m not getting taxed again next year on my stock. This “getting taxed to 0” concept is a misdirection to try to confuse workers about progressive taxes. You get taxed until you’re at the threshold (which is still much more than most people will ever have). You’re not ending up poor, or even middle class.
I agree with your last paragraph. But both the corruptors and the corrupted have a strong incentive to keep the status quo. They always will, in capitalism.
And besides that, being extremely wealthy doesn’t just give you political power through bribes. You probably have powerful friends, many of them probably owe you a favor or two. If you control a big company, you can even push governments around out in the open: if your state doesn’t write/keep laws that make me more money, I’m going to close up shop in your state and leave 10% of your workforce unemployed over night. Unelected people simply shouldn’t have that much power.
The point is that you’re not fixing the problem, you’re just masking it (and one could even argue enabling it).
The same way adding another 4 lane highway doesn’t fix traffic long term (increasing highway throughput leads to more people leads to more cars leads to congestion all over again) simply adding more RAM is only a temporary solution.
Developers use the excuse of people having access to more RAM as justification to produce more and more bloated software. In 5 years you’ll likely struggle even with 32GiB, because everything uses more.
That’s not sustainable, and it’s not necessary.
I’ve definitely turned into the paranoid nutcase within my friend group in recent years, I hate that everything is “smart” nowadays requiring an app/internet connection & account, just to do basic things that didn’t require any of that before....
Spaces? Tabs? Don’t care, works regardless.
Copied some code from somewhere else? No problem, 9/10 times it just works. Bonus: a smart IDE will let you quick-format the entire code to whatever style you configured at the click of a button even if it was a complete mess to begin with, as long as all the curly braces are correct.
Also, in any decent IDE you will very rarely need to actually count curly braces, it finds the pair for you, and even lets you easily navigate between them.
The inconsistent way that whitespace is handled across applications makes interacting with code outside your own code files incredibly finicky when your language cares so much about the layout.
There’s an argument to be made for the simplicity of python-style indentation and for its aesthetic merits, but IMO that’s outweighed by the practical inconvenience it brings.
You don’t need to correct something everyone already knows is an exaggeration (and I agree it doesn’t seem very socially aware to do so) but this is a political discussion on the internet, so
Everyone does not know the original figure is an exaggeration, especially by how much
Providing the actual information ads value to the conversation and in this context this is more important than whether the commenter comes off as smarmy or socially inept
What if they said “Hey I know you’re being hyperbolic, but for anyone who’s interested, here’s the number estimated by experts…”?
The only difference here is tone.
I’m not sure why they only shared numbers for minke whales, as these don’t seem to be hunted anymore in Iceland in contrast to fin whales, whom the article was about.
Many mushroom identification and foraging books being sold on Amazon are likely generated by AI with no human authorship. These books could provide dangerous misinformation and potentially lead to deaths if people eat poisonous mushrooms based on the AI’s inaccurate descriptions. Two New York mushroom societies have warned...
As always, the dose makes the poison.
A common scenario is people picking the wrong species and then not just eating a small bite, but cooking an entire meal and eating that.
A small bite may not kill you, but just one mushroom (50g) can be enough to do it.
There are some toxic mfs out there and they can be mistaken for edible lookalikes by inexperienced foragers.
Btw tab reordering is only missing for private tabs on the latest ff on Android.
Unfortunately there is still no acceleration when reordering so the ux is not great when you have many tabs.
Actually fruits are pretty great for us, if they aren’t highly processed.
Better to eat an apple than drink apple juice, also better to eat an apple than just about anything from the supermarket that isn’t fresh.
Of course, you still need a balanced diet, and you can’t get nearly all the necessary nutrients from just apples. Still, assuming an otherwise nutrient-complete diet, it’s a lot less healthy to eat a slice of frozen pizza than an apple or a banana. (the apple might even contain less available sugar than the pizza slice - people often overestimate how much sugar fruits really contain)
The “stuff removed” bit is more important than you seem to give it credit for. Take out all the fiber and water and sure it’s still the same sugars that are left over, but we didn’t evolve to consume large quantities of pure sugar, so it spikes our insulin and gets stored as excess fat.
Fruit juice is pretty unhealthy, because all the sugar is more available due to all the fiber being stripped out and you can consume a dozen apples’ worth in a few minutes, which you wouldn’t do with actual apples.
Sure, there’s not that much fiber left in raisins either. But in the context of musli they can be combined with whole grains and nuts, so you get enough fiber back to make the sugar less quickly digested and thus more healthy.
A third of the entire cereal mix being sugar is definitely worse than musli with raisins (which comes to about 10g of sugar per 100g), especially considering that a good portion of the rest of the mass in the case of musli is made up of fiber, proteins and healthy fats.
Adding sugar isn’t just “another big issue”, it’s the big issue. Eating fresh fruits is a non-issue, and usually so is eating dried fruits in moderation.
I’ve been trying to think of things commonly sold in supermarkets that are not fresh and that are more healthy than fruits, and after a few minutes I have to say I came up blank.
Maybe vegetable soup? Not sure if you can get a good soup at the supermarket.
That does indeed seem like the hangup in this case, and it’s on me; I should have used a less vague word or else clarify.
To me fresh is anything that hasn’t been processed for preservation (except drying). So cheese isn’t fresh, heat treated milk/cream isn’t fresh, smoked and cooked meats aren’t fresh, pickled foods aren’t fresh, frozen foods aren’t fresh and anything with actual preservatives added is definitely not fresh.
“raw” would probably have been the better word to use.
Also, having thought about my own understanding of the word a bit more in depth, I’ll concede that some pickled veggies are pretty healthy, as well as yoghurt.
Many of the programming languages that are regularly the butt of everyone’s jokes don’t just allow you to use them badly, they make it easy to do so, sometimes easier than using them well.
This is not a good thing. A good language should
be well suited to the task at hand
be easy to use correctly
be hard to use incorrectly
The reality is that the average software developer barely knows best practices, much less how to apply them effectively.
This fact, combined with languages that make it easy to shoot yourself in the foot leads to lots of bad code in the wild.
Tangentially related rantWe should attack this problem from both directions: improve developers but also improve languages.
Sometimes that means replacing them with new languages that are designed on top of years of knowledge that we didn’t have when these old languages were being designed.
There seems to be a certain cynicism (especially from some more senior developers) about new languages.
I’ve heard stuff like: every other day a new programming language is invented, it’s all just a fad, they add nothing new, all the existing languages could already do all the things the new ones can, etc.
To me this misses the point. New languages have the advantage of years of knowledge accrued in the industry along with general technological advancements, allowing them to be safer, more ergonomic, and more efficient.
Sure, we can also improve existing languages (and should, and do) but often times for one reason or another (backwards compatibility, implementation effort, the wider technological ecosystem, dogma, politics, etc.) old quirks and deficiencies stay. Even for experienced developers who know how to use their language of choice well, there can be unnecessary cognitive burden caused by poor language design. The more your language helps you automatically avoid mistakes, the more you can focus on actually developing software. We should embrace new languages when they lead to more good code and less bad code.
A perfectly rational agent should choose behavior that works when other agents apply the same behavior.
If everyone uses her strategy, the queue can only get shorter if there’s exactly one person left in the queue, but it gets longer each time someone joins it.
In an idealized world where everyone can instantly teleport, this doesn’t technically reduce the throughput of the queue, however it does still increase its size unnecessarily. (and in the real world it also decreases throughput, potentially by a significant amount if the queue is physically long enough)
Even granting that she doesn’t care about anyone else, the strategy is still slower for her even if she’s the only one using it.
Judging from the picture, she will lose at least a few seconds when the person in front of her leaves the queue and she still has to walk the remaining distance to the front of the queue.
For a more extreme example, imagine the queue is a kilometer long. Assuming everyone before her shuffled along like the average queue enjoyer, she would now be one person-width away from the goal had she shuffled along with them.
If she used her “perfectly rational” strategy instead, she would now have to walk a full kilometer which, being very generous to her, would cost her an additional 12 minutes.
Perfectly rational behavior, if your only objective is to annoy others.
(there is perhaps an argument in favor of some variant of her strategy, if there is a high time/effort/opportunity cost associated with starting and/or stopping, but I think realistically this will rarely if ever be the case in an airport security queue)
It’s not even the same if you strictly consider ‘the time I spend in this line’, which I would assume is to most people the time that actually matters.
Everyone behind her doesn’t just lose the feeling of progress, they lose actual time (granted it’s probably just a few seconds). And she loses that time also.
The actual justification here seems to be that she’s busy doing something on her phone and doesn’t want to be distracted every 30 seconds, which in her mind trumps the handful of seconds she and everyone behind her would gain.
Which imo would be fair enough, if you didn’t have to also add the annoyance of the people behind her to the equation.
Many people standing in such queues are tired, stressed about catching their flight, or otherwise impaired and someone holding up the queue for no obvious reason can become aggravating fast.
I haven’t used a different browser in a good while, so I’m not sure that these issues don’t exist elsewhere, but here’s a few:
For a very long time after the rework, reordering tabs was not possible. Only recently was this added again. But there seems to be no acceleration, so moving an old tab to the front takes forever. Even worse, this feature is still not available for private tabs (since you can’t select those at all).
Quite often when I switch to the tab overview, it doesn’t automatically scroll to my current tab so I need to do that manually.
I’m also not a fan of the “jump back in” view that shows up every so often instead of the content of my tab. Why they would assume I’m interested in anything besides what I intentionally opened is beyond me.
Creating a new tab is more cumbersome than it needs to be. I think you were able to do that by scrolling to the right on the address bar of the rightmost tab. A dedicated button would be even better.
I think it’s a great browser, and pretty much the only one I use, but in my experience everything does not work perfectly.
1Password discloses security incident linked to Okta breach (www.bleepingcomputer.com)
Spooktober meme time! (loot.buckodr.ink)
Comment Your Code People (suppo.fi)
Larion Studios forum stores your passwords in unhashed plaintext. (lemmy.world)
Larion Studios forum stores your passwords in unhashed plaintext. Don’t use a password there that you’ve used anywhere else.
Chess grandmaster Hans Niemann denies using vibrating sex toy to cheat (www.bbc.com)
In case you forgot. (lemmy.world)
Yup (lemmy.ml)
My poor RAM... (loot.buckodr.ink)
What's a current or growing trend only you seem to have concerns about?
I’ve definitely turned into the paranoid nutcase within my friend group in recent years, I hate that everything is “smart” nowadays requiring an app/internet connection & account, just to do basic things that didn’t require any of that before....
Every Single Freaking Time (lemmy.world)
The lengths we have to go to (sh.itjust.works)
Iceland allows whaling to resume in ‘massive step backwards’ (www.theguardian.com)
‘Life or Death:’ AI-Generated Mushroom Foraging Books Are All Over Amazon (www.404media.co)
Many mushroom identification and foraging books being sold on Amazon are likely generated by AI with no human authorship. These books could provide dangerous misinformation and potentially lead to deaths if people eat poisonous mushrooms based on the AI’s inaccurate descriptions. Two New York mushroom societies have warned...
Google is now moderating user's bookmarks and removing them. (lemm.ee)
Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules. A similar fight is coming to the U.S. (www.statnews.com)
Kellogg’s is waging a war here over Tigre Toño and Sam el Tucán....
Javascript can create atomic bombs (programming.dev)
Insanity (reddthat.com)
Firefox has surpassed Chrome on Speedometer (treeherder.mozilla.org)