kjrose

I have seen something like this as a safety mechanism. It fires and you are supposed to either check in or verify something that is critical to life. The randomness is to ensure that psychologically the alarm is not ignored or becomes habit to respond to.

Not positive if this is the same though.

Yes redundancy is very important.

I lost a decade of my life data when a main hd failed, and a tb backup drive failed at the same time.

It's time. The AI are actively working to bring eachother down.

Yay pigeon-hole principle combined with birthday attack.

So many folks don't seem to have remember this. IBM was also the same with the giant mainframes. Even now, if you have a power system, it's pretty much mandatory to pay an ongoing "service agreement" or very quickly you'll discover you have major issues.

I hate that the system has it where you don't own anything and you are supposed to be happy with it. But from a market perspective what else can they do? They need to make a regular income to pay for the development and such, but they also need to deal with the fact that a competitor who offers a freemium or product at a loss but where they can at some point in the future hide future costs will just naturally win.

I Gave up on the youtube video.

Honestly though, this is still better than some of the "secure password" prompts I've encountered in life.

Are you totally unaware of the history of Microsoft all the way back to the 80s?

Microsoft does not care about anything more than the bottom line. As long as they can increase revenues and market penetration, they will do it. They've been playing this game since IE.

Either way, there's no way to stop that. People can easily just keep going in private if they wish, and no government has enough power to stop the development.

I fully agree. Moratoriums usually accomplish little, and give the organizations who have the technology 6 more months to get ahead of everyone else.

The idea that somehow everyone would miraculously stop working with the LLM models that are out there because someone declared a moratorium is madness. That would be like saying a 6 month moratorium on malware development should be declared.

The only players who would keep developing would be those who recognize that the moratorium is pointless, or people who are already wanting to use the tech maliciously.

The idea behind GPT-4 is out there, it is something that is going to be reproduced regardless of what is discussed and unlike, say, nuclear weapons, it doesn't require a complicated infrastructure to implement and build. We need to continue to build this, and organizations with critical access to infrastructure and such need to take their security more seriously moving forward.

I remember reading many books on how when electricity was invented for decades there were tons of scams which essentially were vaporware hypestorms. Look at Victorian England and the myriad medical scams around electricity.

Same with many chemical discoveries in the 1800s, and with nuclear discoveries in the 1950s.

The snake oil salesmen will always race to some new tech to try and make a quick buck. Partially because the new tech actually does do some interesting things and partially because it's new enough no one can call them on it quite yet.

Even now there are tons of new science and tech in other fields that the general public are more convinced than ever work for health, etc. And at best are hopeful thinking and at worst are massive scams which are straight out hurting millions.

To continue a bit more, I have really tried to figure out if there is any way to deal with email spam that doesn't either ban anyone but incredibly trusted servers (And even then it fails horribly), or doesn't put some sort of cost on people sending emails (either time, effort or monetary.)

I would rather have email be free and open, but I see the issues that arise from bad actors in that environment who have no real cost to abusing it and have major potential for gain if they are successful.

That being said, the easiest answer, in my head, would be to make it so that sending email to people in an unsolicited fashion has some cost. Yet, even that is problematic, because I want some people to send me unsolicited email from time to time....

The only thing I can see that could possibly be done is to either remove commenting altogether, and remove that as a method for determining engagement with the video. Or to make it so that to comment requires full validation (either by restricting to individuals with Youtube Premium, or some cost to be able to comment) of the individual who is commenting so that automation of it is no longer feasible from a monetary perspective. In theory, they could still allow users to post "Anonymously" but they would have to be posting from an account which has been paid for, or for which some monetary or time cost was necessary to prevent a spammer from simply spinning up more accounts.

There is no way to automate this because you have too much money on the side of the scammer should they break through it since if they only catch 1 out of 10,000 people, it immediately pays their bills. This is the big issue with email spam, we can fight and fight, but at the end of the say, there is no monetary cost really to sending out a stupidly absurd number of emails.

Someone needs to do this but for a windows environment. The documentation is a disaster in that realm. Took me forever to get it working properly with active directory.

Was this written by GPT-3 or some other AI. I don't know why, but it has that AI feel to it. Many of the paragraphs feel just... forced and awkward.

Definitely doesn't feel like original research.

Set up a straight postfix with relay blocking on a server using maildir. Set up whatever tool you want for pop or imap.

That way you get the emails and if you don't care about space, etc. And it uses very little processing power and is pretty much writing direct to disk the moment the emails come in.