dpark

> Useful objects are not copyrightable

It cannot be this clean cut or Google v Oracle would have been trivial to decide.

A telephone directory can be copyright protected, too. The facts within it cannot. Exactly like recipes. A particular presentation of a recipe is absolutely copyright protected. But this doesn’t mean no one can publish the same recipe in their own presentation

Security software fetching links will not trigger this behavior. It needs to be done in the context of the actual ChatGPT user so that a JavaScript payload can run.

If merely GET on the link was sufficient to trigger the behaviors, the adversary generating the link would just GET it themselves.

I’m pretty sure there is no set of qualifications and it’s whatever dang decides.

I looked for this on Audible and found that there is another author named Patrick Stewart publishing fantasy smut. It would have been too funny if Sir Patrick Stewart were narrating fantasy smut, but sadly, narrated by “virtual voice”.

“Has our strategy of being openly hostile to anyone asking questions finally resulted in the increase in questions we always dreamed of? Did our long term bet on alienating the community finally pay off?”

> In my experience, people who buy touchscreen-enabled laptops quickly loose the habit of using the touchscreen for exactly that reason.

I have not experienced that at all. I see people touch their touch-capable laptop screens all the time.

I don’t understand how people legitimately hold this belief that no one could or would use a laptop touchscreen. This is exactly how millions of people use their tablets every day. You hold it in your lap and you poke the screen. Or you use the stand to prop it up on a table and you poke at the screen. And shockingly, your arm doesn’t fall off.

They have had people asking them for touchscreen laptops for years. They legitimately lose sales to people who want a Mac but refuse to buy a laptop without a touch screen.

I think this is the wrong device to start with, though. The demand for touchscreens is probably highest in the cheapest lines. But presumably this will trickle down over the next few years.

That was a pretty asinine example. That’s a perfect example of where touchscreen laptops do not work.

Yeah. It’s appealing in theory. On windows devices I made that choice a few times. I wouldn’t anymore.

If nothing else, the more complex hinges create significantly higher failure risk.

> No idea why anyone would want a laptop form factor with a touch screen; seems like an RSI nightmare.

I have no idea how this keeps getting repeated. No one with a touchscreen laptop is just hovering their arms in front of the screen like a zombie for hours.

It’s another input. You use it when it makes sense. For some, that’s pretty frequent. For others like you, maybe never.

Writing on a laptop screen with a pen is kind of a crappy experience. The screen position is not rigid enough for that to be comfortable. It “bounces” as you write.

I use it constantly. No one actually holds their hands up to the screen for extended periods of time. But touching the screen to click a button can be more efficient than tabbing or mousing to it. Especially if the laptop is on your lap.

Scrolling through long docs is also comfortable with touch if it’s on your lap or a flat surface directly in front of you. You scroll with the thumb while your hand/arm rests comfortably.

The set of people who use convertible laptops in tablet mode seems tiny. It’s one of those things that looks like a great idea but doesn’t pan out in real life. Everyone uses it once, says “cool” and never uses it again. 13” tablet that weighs as much as a laptop is not a great form factor.

> This is the security engineering. It’s not just checking boxes. It’s evaluating risks.

This is absolutely not security engineering. This is nit picking a specific attack factor and trying to argue that it’s impractical. I suspect you are wrong, but it doesn’t matter, because you are ignoring the broader class of attacks and focusing on one specific example. The class issue is that on a Mac, you cannot trust any terminal-based application to honor the CRL. This means that any site accessed from a terminal based application cannot be trusted. There are a billion ways to exploit that.

This is not good security engineering from Apple. There is no way to justify this. Humans make mistakes, and that’s just life, but we shouldn’t pretend that this is an acceptable state or an acceptable response.

You said the same thing twice. “The site” == archive.today

The claim is that archive.today is injecting malware into archived pages. Given some of the past behavior, this is not hard to believe.