honestly, it has the word AI somewhere in their last year activities, even if they don't do it themselves.
Investors are dumb as fuck, they know nothing about anything other than keywords and hype trains, so with the AI keyword they might go crazy on this.
I keep saying it, the stock market is a mistake for humanity, it doesn't make sense to put a gambling house in the core of the world economy.
there is a risk of pressing "stop" instead of snooze or not hearing the alarm at all, I'm with OP on this one, I tend to go 2 or 3 depending on how tired I am, but never 1 xD
"somewhat old" person opinion warning ⚠️
When I was in university (2002 or so) we had an "AI" lecture and it was mostly "if"s and path finding algorithms like A*.
So I would argue that us the engineers have been using the term to define a wider use cases long before LLM, CEO and marketing people did it. And I think that's fine, as categorising algorithms/solutions as AI helps understand what they will be used for, and we (at least the engineers) don't tend to assume an actual self aware machine when we hear that name.
nowadays they call that AGI, but it wasn't always like that, back in my time it was called science fiction 😉
I already unsubscribed and start sailing when the account share thing happened, but people are willing to take anything these days... so good for netflix I suppose.
101 businessman logic: slowly stretch it until numbers go down, and then back down a bit, just to keep trying stretching it further in a later time. Repeat.
infinite growth guaranteed.
This is why at this point I don't trust any subscription type thing, they are all destined to end up in that cycle, which, good for them, I think it'll have to explode eventually, or not, who cares, I'm already out anyway
One thing to think about is the encryption quality of a zip file, which I ignore.
One danger that I see is that you have the risk of having the passwords on the clear all over the place many times. Not an expert so don't quote me on this, but password managers are careful avoiding passwords on the clear as much as possible.
I don't trust any online service for that, I am using keepass/syncthing for myself, with android as the only client decrypting (as I always have my phone with me). one example of advanced security measures is that while using the app I can't take screenshots, and I hope/expect that it uses images backed by secure memory to show them to me and is careful with things like RAM and temporary files (didn't check personally though, although being open source I could)
Having to be sure that your zip app handles that seems like a hustle honestly. On top of having random passwords without the biases I would add for each separate site.
google claimed that they would start charging money for the gmail with your domain thing. when that happened I tried moving my account to a normal @gmail.com, but was not possible. So I created a new one and after manually copying all emails, files etc I contacted them to transfer my purchased apps.
Apparently it was impossible.
haven't buy anything since then
I had to change my email/account with google and couldn't port the apps in the gplay store. This was mostly due to having a google domains that did many years ago, but still didn't get any solution when I explained that to the google customer service. It was clear to me that is not worth wasting a penny there.
you seem to know what you are talking about and I looked into this very long ago, maybe you can help me understand.
From what I can understand reading most of the article this forces browsers to accept the certificates, but it doesn't force the websites to use them, right?
So what is stopping Firefox from showing a warning (like the lock icon being orange, but it could also be a more intrusive message) stating that the certificate was issued by a country and/or doesn't fullfil modern security standards in case one of these CAs is used?
On top of that, the CA doesn't really encrypt the private key of the domain, it just adds a signature stating that the message with the salt and the public key are legit, right? everyone seems to think the government itself will be able to passively see the traffic, but if I remember correctly they would have to gateway the whole transaction (I'm guessing the browser will also have a cache of keys and this could become a bit tricky to do in a global way)
But of course we all know how technologically illiterate governments are (there could be one good, but there will be some "less good" for sure). So yeah, it does sound like a horrible idea to begin with. Because if a CA starts being insecure nowadays browsers can just remove them and go with their life, but if there is a law forcing browsers wouldn't be able to.
I'm just curious about the specifics in case I'm outdated on what I remember.
making sure a small part is very secure vs having to verify every domain I visit? yeah, let me keep using the current system.... are you aware of the amount of domains you connect to every day?
Also, I might be wrong, but if I remember correctly browsers/OS-es tend to come with a list of trusted certificate keys already, which makes adding compromised keys to that list not as easy as you suggest. (I don't even know if that happens or if they just update as part of security updates of OS/browsers)
with the added benefit of a 2-4 years of free rent with free meals and special shower service 😉
The internet is wild, people spend most of their time in small echo chambers and they think that is the whole internet.
jokes aside, is weird enough to look appealing to me, and probably functional.