I do not want the gas station, or the airplane I'm on, spying on me to build relevant advertising. That is the end game of "relevant ads": my gas pump already serves me ads, the airplane I'm on serves me ads, my own car now (via a software update that occurred after purchase) serves me ads. Monitors now serve ads. TVs are abusing people's Internet connections, which isn't ads, but it's basically the same problem: if I can abuse the customer without consequence, why shouldn't I?

Just no. The problem is, I as a consumer cannot vote with my wallet: companies can and will go "I could take your money, and earn $X, or I could do that and ads and earn $X + $Y."; there is not reason for them to choose the former, and most markets are so concentrated (e.g., airlines) that there is not ample competition for the market to provide ample "vote with wallet" choices. Further, in the car example, it's just bait and switch: even when I think I can vote with my wallet, the company can just alter the terms of the deal, knowing full well the switching price of a car makes me subservient to them.

You might call that library "nix"[1]. Many, though not all, of the bindings are safe wrappers around the underlying unsafe syscall.

(The specific call of mmap from upthread, though, that one is not. I'm not sure how you would make such a call safe.)

[1]: https://docs.rs/nix/latest/nix/index.html

The bigger problem, though, was that the EV we were considering (a Prius) was scarce. So even though I couldn't make the alleged price make sense … well, if there's no supply, then the price may as well be $∞.

So IDK, since that lack of supply also seems to suggest other people disagree (or put utility to the ecological aspects).

> Remove the control when there is no way for users to enable it

That guidance is unhinged, and is exactly the anti-pattern that upthread points to that needs to die.

Removing the control is like gaslighting the user: they're looking for "how to do X?" and documentation, Internet searchable screenshots, and, god help us, now AI, are pointing them at a button that does not exist. I cannot tell you how many times I've frustratingly circled that mulberry bush as a user, for a wide range of products.

No, the button (and all other UI elements) should always present/be visible, and if there is a disabled control, there should be a HIG-standardized way to determine why it is disabled. (I.e., a mandatory tool-tip that states what actions would cause the control to enable, though I'd accept that tool-tips themselves are not always discoverable. You could have a small, standardized icon on the disabled control, like an :information-symbol-emoji: that might hit towards the tool-tip, or just put in underneath.)

But in particular, the cut of the bowl stack being spilled … that scene in particular makes no sense. The entire physics of it should feel wrong because they are wrong. In the same way that CGI animations and/or games get more realistic looking the closer they simulate physics, so too does animation: if a character drops a bowl (in a setting with gravity), then it must act so, and animators know this and render it as such. Yes, and AI will try to predict it, but it strikes me akin to trying to perform a computation in screen space that must be performed in 3D space.

The soup also feels wrong, and it only takes a second rewatch to determine why; the shot feels non-committal, because it is: are we ladling, are we pouring, is the soup phasing out the bottom?

The best animators out there, to me, reward you for watching harder. Small things that make sense in the context of what you're seeing, but aren't necessary. The more you look, the more detail there is to the scene. I'd offer Frieren as an example here. For example, in E21 (the episode where Frieren breaks the barrier during the test): the episode starts when Flamme brings Frieren before Serie; this occurs hundreds, if not more than a millennia, prior to the main events. We see Serie in a temple. Later, when Frieren breaks the barrier, we see Serie remark: "This is why I will never retire."; the same temple, but now the walls are worn with time. This is made somewhat apparent, as there's a fade to denote the passage of the time. (Less apparent is there is allegedly a one or two frame shot of Serie, whose barrier it is, overlaid in the spell Frieren casts to break it. It's visible if you watch it, but not really intelligible.) As another example, the timeskip in E1 has her visiting the same shop twice, and the aging of the shop keeper & shop is visible. It's not just the same shop, it's from the same angle, specifically so that we the viewer can understand it to be the same shop. It's not required for the plot, but it builds out a richer story. As a final example, E17, Fern comes in from the cold & touches Stark on the face ("You're a monster!", Stark screams.) Later, when Fern falls ill, Stark tries to wake Frieren, who is by this point notorious for sleeping too long. Stark wakes her by touching her face, to which Frieren responds, "You're a monster." (Honestly Frieren is one of those animes that's probably so littered with these things that I'm missing like 80% of them.) But good animations make detailed choices all the way down to that level: as far as the plot cares, Stark only needs to wake Frieren, but he wakes her in the particular way that makes sense for the character we've built.

But in AI pieces, the detail is just never there, because when it's "wall in background", there's so many walls, in so many backgrounds, all muddled up in the training data.

Frieren's earrings are actually somewhat similar to the smock comment: her earrings are visually consistent throughout the entire anime, not merely a few shots. (Again, this is an example that's rich in detail, too: chronologically earlier shots of Frieren notably lack the earrings, which is made possible to notice by their consistency & distinctiveness when they're present in the first place. We're probably to presume she acquires them at some yet unrevealed point, and the visual similarity to her teacher Flamme's jewelery also leaves the viewer to wonder if they're related. But it's that choice, that these two sets of accessories appear similar, that allows us to build that connection. It's also the sort of thing that leaves me wondering "how long were the writers planning?!")

(I'd also offer the soundtrack as something that I don't know that AI can ever reach. The song "Knife to the Throat" gives me chills if I play it in my mind. But it's harder to demonstrate detail and thematic elements in a musical piece, I think. An a musical example, I'd offer "Pink Pony Club": the opening notes to which are a musical allusion to "I Will Survive". The notes are chosen intentionally, as a specific reference (one thematically relevant to the song), to set a specific tone and setting for the song that is to come, and you need to know the reference and the history and context it exists in, to be able to appreciate it.)

0:19 - [same time] several bowls are just sloppified, e.g., having two bottoms

0:45 - last of the soup phases out the bottom of the bowl

Continuity errors with the smock. (Is there a logo on the pocket, or no? Does it have a pocket?)

("How Asians Pay for the Bill" … what a title)

0:29 - a water drop drops off the ice cube and falls to the next ice cube … inside the water?

The cards are never quite the same; sometime the contacts are misplaced, sometimes they're missing.

But things like the girl phasing in the table, the soup phasing through the bowl … these are things a human would never animate, because they've lived their entire life understanding the physics of soup. Or, like with the card … they'd get a reference.

> The authenticator data is a CBOR structure defined in the WebAuthn Level 3 specification, is returned by the getAuthenticatorData() method of the AuthenticatorAttestationResponse

From TFA,

> The payload is the authenticator data, a CTAP2 CBOR encoding of most of the credential record fields that is already specified by WebAuthn

Both link to the same section of the WebAuthn spec, §6.1 Authenticator Data[1]. Unless I'm missing something, that section is describing a custom binary format, not a CBOR encoding of data. (Though n.b. that one of the items contained by the outer custom binary format is CBOR, but the 37(ish) byte array itself is not CBOR.)

(…and it's stuff like that that just makes all of WebAuthn so impenetrable.)

[1]: https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn-3/#sctn-authenticator-data

Ultimately, someone has to be in control of who is or is not part of that decentralized network that is the registry. (Or, alternatively phrased, how are you preventing me from saying "I'm part of the .crypto registry, totes.")

Aside from that, the root nameservers is still an entity that is controlled (by ICANN, specifically).

I don't think it's that encryption was harmful, it's that it wasn't enough, and in a sense I agree with TFA & the Sun Tzu bit: it needed to be complemented by legislation that added decent privacy protections, and it largely wasn't. That was a mistake, I suppose, but the current political situation, esp. in the USA, disfavors privacy regulation getting done, ever. The Democrats are … maybe spiritually for it? … but not terrible effectual at getting it done; Obama's response to Snowden was "meh" at best, and Congresspeople, in particular Feinstein especially, let the DNI walk all over her. The GOP has no interest at all in regulating corporations, at all, ever, so with the House/Senate/POTUS all (R) at the moment, it's going to be until at least Nov before it is possible to even think that these might get addressed, and even that's … generous, and I won't be holding my breath for it to occur.

Stuff like what we saw in another thread today — with LG wantonly installing spyware — and things like Flock would have happened in addition to network intercepts; they are not happening instead of. Corporations and the government will do whatever the People permit them to get away with.

The GN video focuses a lot on consent, and while maybe this is notionally currently illegal without consent, that just steers towards companies shipping a generic ToS popup, claiming you "read" that 1.8 PiB of ToS, and including the "oh btdubs we can modify these terms at any times and if you want to go to court lol forced arbitration has other ideas about that."

MS & Windows having conditioned users to expect / think they need drivers for peripherals speaking standard protocols is also part of this. A monitor shouldn't need a driver. It takes the pixels, it displays the pixels.

(¹yes, it seems like you can work around it by going to the URL de novo, … but IDK, doesn't seem worth it.)

I'm guessing the advantage here would be that the compiled "bytecode" (the resulting bash) can be distributed to systems that would then not need to have Amber installed. (And vs. a real binary from, e.g., Go/Rust/etc., it isn't tied to the platform, either.)

Vs. a Ruby script would require Ruby as a run-time dependency; Amber here is effectively a compile-time dependency.

Python 3 is available basically everywhere these days though, so I think there's still a lot of merit to just using a higher level language like you suggest. Even Ruby, while not available out of the box, is not exactly hard to get on most OSes.

(Yes, there is some other stuff, much, much, much later that maybe cuts into that …)

http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/S/script-kiddies.html