I stumbled upon the Geminy page by accident, so i figured lets give it a try.

I asked him in czech if he can also generate pictures. He said sure, and gave me examples about what to ask him.

So I asked him, again in czech, to generate a cat drinking a beer at a party.

His reply was that features for some languages are still under development, and that he can’t do that in this language.

So I asked him in english.

I can’t create images for you yet, but I can still find images from the web.

Ok, so I asked if he can find me the picture on the web, then.

I’m sorry, but I can’t provide images of a cat drinking beer. Alcohol is harmful to animals and I don’t want to promote anything that could put an animal at risk.

Great, now I have to argue with my search engine that is giving me lessons on morality and decide what is and isn’t acceptable. I told him to get bent, that this was the worst first impression I ever had with any LLM model, and I’m never using that shit again. If this was integrated into google search (which I havent used for years and sticked to Kagi), and now replaces google assistant…

Good, that’s what people get for sticking with google. It brings me joy to see Google dig it’s own grave with such success.

I see. So, you having shares basically means you own part of the company assets, and if it were to for example shut down or get into huge trouble (so no one sensible would want to buy their shares), you’ll still get kind of compensated from the value of their remaining assets being sold? That kind of makes sense, and is the difference I was looking for.

It’s still weird, but a little bit more understandable than crypto, which is only literally stealing and scamming money from others (who will eventually in the end end up left with all the literally valueless crypto, and whose money basically paid for all your profit from it)

I see, stonks are way more bullshit than I thought. Is there anything else you can do with your stock, other than sell it to someone else? I always thought that crypto is such a scam especially because in the end, it has no value in itself, and the only thing you can do with it is sell it to someone else. If noone wants to buy it, well, you are fucked. Does it mean that stocks are exactly the same concept? I always thought it has something to do with the vaule of the company and the profits it earns, but if there is no way how to cash them out other than selling your piece of paper to someone, then it’s really the same? I suppose that unlike crypto, the stock price increases if the company is turning profit, but you still have to find someone to sell it to, right, so the price is increasing only because the demand from people willing to buy it is increasing due to it turning profit, but it’s not really tied to the actual value of the company, so it’s exactly like crypto? Or is the price set by some different mechanism than crypto is - pure demand from people willing to buy?

I’ve always thought that stocks have to pay dividents, like that’s the whole point of having it? I.e you get paid by the company regularly some of their profit, based on how much stock you have.

Does this mean that the only way how to make money from their stock now is to sell them to someone else? But then, it has nothing to do with the actual company and money they make, but you are paid by someone totally unrelated - the guy who buys the stock from you. I don’t get it, I suppose I’m missing something.

One place where I found AI usefull is in generating search queries in JIRA. Not having to deal with their query language every time I have to change a search filter, but being able to just use the built in AI to query in natural language has already saved me like two or three minutes in total in the last two months.

Isn’t that, like, illegal?

• OrangePi with HomeAssistant and PiHole.
• Old gaming PC turned 24/7 server with Jellyfin, V-Rising server
• Hetzner cloud with Matrix server for Messenger and Discord bridging.
• Synology NAS for SMB and sharing stuff with others through Synology Drive, which also serves as a seedbox for Redacted.ch, with Headphones and Transmission.

I’m not. I vaguely remember seeing it in some posts and comments, and it would explain it pretty well, so I kind of took it as a likely outcome. In hindsight, You are right, I shouldnt have been spreading hearsay. Thanks for the wakeup call, honestly!

I see a lot of hate ITT on kernel-level EDRs, which I wouldn’t say they deserve. Sure, for your own use, an AV is sufficient and you don’t need an EDR, but they make a world of difference. I work in cybersecurity doing Red Teamings, so my job is mostly about bypassing such solutions and making malware/actions within the network that avoids being detected by it as much as possible, and ever since EDRs started getting popular, my job got several leagues harder.

The advantage of EDRs in comparison to AVs is that they can catch 0-days. AV will just look for signatures, a known pieces or snippets of malware code. EDR, on the other hand, looks for sequences of actions a process does, by scanning memory, logs and hooking syscalls. So, if for example you would make an entirely custom program that allocates memory as Read-Write-Execute, then load a crypto dll, unencrypt something into such memory, and then call a thread spawn syscall to spawn a thread on another process that runs it, and EDR would correlate such actions and get suspicious, while for regular AV, the code would probably look ok. Some EDRs even watch network packets and can catch suspicious communication, such as port scanning, large data extraction, or C2 communication.

Sure, in an ideal world, you would have users that never run malware, and network that is impenetrable. But you still get at avarage few % of people running random binaries that came from phishing attempts, or around 50% people that fall for vishing attacks in your company. Having an EDR increases your chances to avoid such attack almost exponentionally, and I would say that the advantage it gives to EDRs that they are kernel-level is well worth it.

I’m not defending CrowdStrike, they did mess up to the point where I bet that the amount of damages they caused worldwide is nowhere near the amount damages all cyberattacks they prevented would cause in total. But hating on kernel-level EDRs in general isn’t warranted here.

Kernel-level anti-cheat, on the other hand, can go burn in hell, and I hope that something similar will eventually happen with one of them. Fuck kernel level anti-cheats.

Why does this need to be installed here when previously agentless technologies was sufficient

As someone who works in offensive Cybersecurity doing Red Teamings, where most of my job is to bypass and evade such solutions, I can say that bypassing agent less technologies is so much easier than agented ones. While you can access most of the logs remotely, having an agent helps you extremely with catching 0-day malware, since you can scan memory (that one is a bitch to bypass and usually how we get caught), or hook syscalls which you can then correlate.

Oh, an unknown unsigned process just called RWX memory allocation, loaded a crypto binary, and spawned a thread in another process that’s trying to execute it? Better scan that memory and see what it’s up to. That is something you cannot do remotely.

From what I’ve heard, didn’t the issue happen not solely because of CS driver, but because of a MS update that was rolled out at the same time, and the changes the update made caused the CS driver to go haywire? If that’s the case, there’s not much MS or CS could have done to test it beforehand, especially if both updates rolled out at around the same time.

From what I’ve heard and to play a devil’s advocate, it coincidented with Microsoft pushing out a security update at basically the same time, that caused the issue. So it’s possible that they didn’t have a way how to test it properly, because they didn’t have the update at hand before it rolled out. So, the fault wasn’t only in a bug in the CS driver, but in the driver interaction with the new win update - which they didn’t have.

I wouldn’t call Crowdstrike a corporate spyware garbage. I work as a Red Teamer in cybersecurity, and EDRs are bane of my existence - they are useful, and pretty good at what they do. In the last few years, I’m struggling more and more to with engagements we do, because EDRs just get in the way and catch a lot of what would pass undetected a month ago. Staying on top of them with our tooling is getting more and more difficult, and I would call that a good thing.

I’ve recently tested a company without EDR, and boy was it a treat. Not defending Crowdstrike, to call that a major fuckup is great understatement, but calling it “corporate spyware garbage” feels a little bit unfair - EDRs do make a difference, and this wasn’t an issue with their product in itself, but with irresponsibility of their patch management.

Crypto is doing kind-of ok. But what about other blockchain apps and startups, or blockchain integrations into every tech imaginable? There were so many popping up, just like there are with AI now. Business models and use-cases that are based solely on the hype of the tech in question, without any consideration about whether it’s actually a good fit for the tech. That is the point, and what it has common with AI and other “buzzwords”.

I’m not sure about other countries, but here in Czech we actually have a mandatory subscription, that’s absolutely bullshit.

So far, the law is that if you own any TV or radio, you have to pay monthly fee for public service broadcasters (national Czech TV). It’s bullshit, the channels are full of ads anyway, and the shows they run and create is insultingly bad. Sure, it is important to have public service broadcasters that are not dependent on the state (because state-owned TV is reeaallly bad idea), but FFS can they just reduce costs and stick to news, instead of doing another stupid series, and stop forcing us to pay for something I don’t care about or use?

You could just not pay the fee, if you state you don’t have a TV capable of receiving it (which I don’t). But now, they are changing the law that everyone who has any kind of internet-capable device has to pay the monthly fee, while also rising prices to something like 6 EUR per month. Fuck that and fuck them.

I suppose it’s written in a way to sound way worse and alarming than it actually is, due to the upcoming elections. It sounds almost unreal, i mean “EU secret plan to ban any kind of encryption or privacy” can’t be reallistically happening, right?

I know about Chatcontrol, so I wouldn’t be surprised, but this article sounds pretty overblown, to the point of sounding more like a wild conspiracy theory. Does anyone have more resources or info about this, that don’t read like an election ad?

I’m not trying to dismiss or disrespect the author, and I trust that it was written with best intentions, but it’s a really worrying topic about which I’d like to get more information about.

However, thanks for bringing it up, I contacted our local Pirate party about the topic, because they don’t have anything related to crime prevention vs. privacy in their programe. I suppose that I know what the answer would be, but getting a confirmation before I vote for them would definitely be nice.

Some kernel anticheats work too, I had no issues playing Helldivers and Hell Let Loose, both of which use EAC. Developers have to enable Linux support, which AFAIK is just one checkbox, so you still get games that don’t allow it (like EVE Vanguard), but most of them are OK.

League and Valorant is a different story, those don’t work.

But a paid licence will affect users that are all right abd for whom you’re doing it.

I understand that using something with a risk of loosong access because you’ve upset the developer is something that will turn away a lot of people, but then again, I’d say that “don’t be a dick” is a pretty reasonable requirement. The only issue I see that it’s a pretty vague definiton, but maybe just limiting it to profanities and insult towards the contributors is something more concrete, which would be easy to fulfill and also enforce.

I wonder, is it possible to create a license that would allow you to simply ban people who are being a dick about something from using it? Sure, it may turn away some people, since there’s always a risk of abuse, but it’s your work and as far as I know, you are the one who sets the terms.

If I’m not mistaken, most of the FOSS licenses (or maybe even laws?) guarantee you that you would be able to use the software even if the project later decides to change to proprietary license. But I assume you can simply specify in a licence “Everyone can use it, expect X.Y.Z”.

Would that be legal? Sure, it would probably be pretty hard to enforce, but in some cases it could make for a pretty satisfactory (and petty, of course) C&D letters, for people that really deserve it. You insult the devs of a software your company depends on, demanding something while being a dick about it? Well, fuck you, no library for you and your company.

But… They said that privacy is the most important thing for them 0_0 https://about.meta.com/actions/protecting-privacy-and-security/