Sam Altman made a public statement yesterday to the contrary, and other AI- related businesses in the valley said “us too!”
Of course, that says nothing about how they’re actually being used already, but at least it’s their public position.
And use… what? xAI? Nobody else will agree to what DoD wants, except possibly DeepSeek.
And of those 30 indictments, how many will lead to convictions?
I’m guessing none.
It’s all about the SLAPP.
My mother’s maiden name was also Spartacus!
The way around it is to not have a public online life.
If it’s too late for that, find someone else with a similar name to you, and use AI to start posting in their writing style.
My other name online is Spartacus.
In this case, they needed drysuits — the problem was that their ATV was stuck on an ice floe that had broken off from the mainland ice.
I just hope that the US Federal Government doesn’t court martial the USCG officers for the public statements they made.
Why doesn’t it mention the Fediverse at all???
Seems like they’re advocating using a Fairphone running e/OS, Ecosia as the search engine, LibreWolf as the browser, LibreOffice as the office package, and W for social media?
Yes, but they’re mostly rich and powerful people, right? So they would have left the country when Apartheid ended in 1994, 32 years ago, or decided to dig in and hold on to what their ancestors rightfully stole?
I just don’t see why anyone who meets the criteria would want to come to the US as a refugee in 2026….
Are there really any South Africans still living there who would want to take the US up on this offer?
Yes; the problem IPFS has is the same problem IPv6 has.
The hash-in-a-URL solution can function cleanly in the background on top of what people already use.
The idea is to verify the archival copy’s URL, not to verify the original content. So yes, a server could push different content to the archiver than to people, or vary by region, or an AitM could modify the content as it goes out to the archiver. But adding the sha256 in the URL query parameter means that if someone publishes a link to an archive copy online, anyone else using the link can know they’re looking at the same content the other person was referencing.
If the archive content changes, that URL will be invalid; if someone uses a fake hash, the URL will be invalid (which is why MD5 wouldn’t be appropriate).
The beauty of this technique is that query parameters are generally ignored if unsupported by the web server, so any archival service could start using this technique today, and all it would require is a browser extension to validate the parameter.
Link it to something like Web of Trust, and you’ve solved the separate issue you described.
In fact, this is a feature WoT could add to their extension today, and it would “Just Work”. For that matter, Archive.org could add it to their extension today, too.
Remind me to ping Jason about that.
Only works for archived pages though, because for any regular page, a large portion of the page will be dynamically generated; hashing the HTML will only say the framework hasn’t changed.
They buried the lede — the decision to blocklist them was because the archived pages were modified in a petty fit of retribution, meaning the archive can no longer be considered an archive (its contents can’t be trusted to stay the same).
The DDoS was just the spotlight that got them thinking about it.
He only modified archived pages in response to a dox attempt?
And the thing is, the discovery of the modified pages revealed that it wasn’t even the first time he’d modified pages. And he used a real person’s identity to try and shift blame.
Irrespective of the doxxing allegations, if he’s done all this multiple times already, it means the page archives can’t be trusted AND there’s no guarantee that anything archived with the service will be available tomorrow.
Seems like we need to switch to URLs that contain the SHA256 of the page they’re linking to, so we can tell if anything has changed since the link was created.
It uses a completely different paradigm of process chaining and management than POSIX and the underlying Unix architecture.
That’s not to say it’s bad, just a different design. It’s actually very similar to what Apple did with OS X.
On the plus side, it’s much easier to understand from a security model perspective, but it breaks some of the underlying assumptions about how scheduling and running processes works on Linux.
So: more elegant in itself, but an ugly wart on the overall systems architecture design.
Obvious solution: more gender neutral bathrooms.
And if anyone complains, just argue that it’s for the children. Mothers need to be able to take their young boys into a safe bathroom space, after all.
Mens and women’s bathrooms really don’t make sense most of the time.
Well that moved quickly.