jwitthuhn

It is a great example to refute the common misconception that LLMs are inherently non-deterministic. I see people repeating this a lot and being able to point at a CPU implemented within one is a very strong counter-example.

Then that piracy would be unethical behavior by the individuals doing it, not the one who released the jailbreak.

The person who released this is no more responsible for switch piracy than linus torvalds is responsible for me playing pirated NES roms on my linux laptop.

Failing to publish it is unethical because this information allows Nintendo's customers to use the hardware they purchased as they see fit.

They didn't release the patch out of fear that someone would quickly use the patch to develop an exploit, meaning an exploit is available shortly after the patch.

What they have achieved by delaying the patch is that exploits are now available publicly before a patch.

Surely this is the worse outcome.

Hopefully the industry will learn something about how withholding fixes to known vulnerabilities is, in fact, bad policy.

Seems like some of the people engaging in "responsible disclosure" were not very responsible and it leaked out.

With that info public they do really need to just release the fix, assuming that tweet is accurate.

edit: Mitigation for impacted versions is to set `session.upload_progress.enabled = Off` in php.ini

The user's IP address.

As implemented it leaks information to HIBP. Whether or not that is a risk depends on your threat model. Leaking information about your local environment is a fact regardless of your threat model.

This is standard tp-link policy. They release a model, give it almost no support, then release a new revision a year later with incompatible hardware and then the old one is never updated again.

So the solution to my iDevice dying is that I have to buy a new one to maintain access to my accounts and have no option to move to non-Apple hardware?

Surely it is possible to use AI and also comprehend its output.

Full disk access requires explicit consent from the user, and can only be given to an application using an obtuse workflow that is deliberately more complicated than just clicking accept.

Apple considers a user deliberately delegating access to their data to any program not controlled by Apple to be a serious problem that must be corrected.

Application developers are not making the user experience worse, Apple is.

Fortunately the corporations here lack the power to imprison people for saying things they don't like.

Apple also forces users onto a web browser that effectively has the same limitations as recent versions of chrome with respect to ad blocking.

They could easily resolve that by allowing alternate browsers, but choose not to.