Copium copium.

You pay for those because you can’t watch them for free without ads by using an extension or something like that. They’re not “convenient enough to bypass” for you.

Make you pay for “what has historically been provided in exchange for a fee or advertisement for the past 17 years, one year after the service launched”.

You’ll do what you want of course, but that fake outrage and righteousness is just pitiful. Just stop pretending and own that you just don’t want to pay for it as long as you’ll be able to.

Anything to justify your stance. The experience is better without ads, but people just don’t want to pay.

Or even a no contest (if allowed by the judge on a serious case like that.)

This is AskLemmy, not go on a rant and spread whatever narrative you feel spreading and add a question mark at the end.

So that argument was used as a reason to attack them the next day. What about the other 40 days since?

So let’s advocate for the bigger of the two terrorist states to continue their terrorist actions until the smaller terrorist state surrenders!

“participants included in the study were on aircraft at significantly lower altitude (mean of 0.6 m for participants v mean of 9146 m for non-participants; P<0.001) and lower velocity (mean of 0 km/h v mean of 800 km/h”

Keeping the stigma/taboo alive doesn’t help the situation.

That’s suspicious.
I have a theory…
Are you sure they weren’t hitting on you, placing nudes on the background and handing you their phone so they knew you had access to their phone number (during the transfer) so they were willing to pay the price of switching phone to get a callback?

I seriously can’t think of another reason than that to put nudes as a freaking background…

It’s not recoverable and permanently compromised if ever it is.

Also, even if someone was trying to impersonate you, you wouldn’t know it unless the recipient told you (which could also be done today with DMARCs, albeit at a domain level not an email level)

I’m glad there are authorities out there (like Google) that act as gatekeepers and track the worthiness of senders. Without that, there would just be no way to close the floodgates. Is Google the best company for that? It’s definitely one of the good ones for that.

No, you can’t forge emails easily as you say. Maybe DMARC isn’t perfect, but it works just fine. Attacks that bypass that are done on misconfigured systems, so human error, which can happen with any tech, the one from this post included.

Yes email is an old tech, but let’s not pretend like it hasn’t evolved. It’s not perfect, but it generally works. I don’t think you need to go fully decentralized, but some steps to have more than a single authority could be positive.

You’re not adding anything that wasn’t argued towards before. Soon or later, you have to trust something. There are ways to transfer keys by other means which you can use to corroborate.

The tradeoffs of this idea are just not worth it for 99% of the people.

I understand how public-private keys work, and I understand why you’d want one. I just think this implementation of a register is bad. Not from a security risk, from a use case point of view; it’s for all intent and purposes an email which if ever compromised is forever compromised and non reusable. It’s an email that’s unrecoverable so not usable in many companies.

I’m sure there are other reasons to not like the idea, but that’s what I can think off the top of my head.

Except the trust of the source of the blockchain, or some certificate authority somewhere at some point, but ya, that’s kinda assumed as there is no way of making a “first handshake” that’s secure.

For me, it all looks like someone is trying to make a product rather than solve an actual issue.

They used a clickbaity title, they’ll get clickbaity judgement.

It’s also not in their abstract, which is supposed.to contain the most important facts. Their first sentence is about how AI generated faces are indistinguishable. No, they’re not. It’s like saying “writing random numbers solves any numerical equation”, not mentioning that I took a gazillion random numbers and did my study on the ones that matched.

I understand why you’re cautious in the “accusation” (don’t put too much weight on accusation, it’s just the idea I want to convey, not any malicious intent) but in this case, I am saying that cherry picking invalidates the findings, as they are stated.

If the findings were framed around “it’s easier to fool people using white AI generated faces”, or something similar, I’d be on board with it. The way it sounds right now is “AI generated faces don’t have all these artifacts 99% of the time” (I’m paraphrasing A LOT, but you get what I mean.)

It’s not a reason to make it worse.

It’s trying to solve a problem that we don’t have. We don’t need any of that to be immutable.