I forgot what it was called, but someone create an encrypted file system where you could never be certain all files were decrypted. You could enter one password and files A B and C would be revealed and accessible, then you could enter another password and files D E and F would be revealed, and again, another password would reveal file G, etc.

The file system was just a big blob of seemingly random bytes, but when processed with the right password, certain patterns would be revealed, those patterns being the files. This brought with it the possibility that files would be lost, because when writing files with password 1, files encrypted with password 2 might be overwritten. Several copies of each file were stored to protect against this, but you could still lose files.

There are some philosophical / legal issues with such a file system, because you can never prove that you’ve decrypted all the files. If prosecutors wanted to claim that you had more files on the filesystem, there’s no way you could disprove it, because you can never prove that you’ve decrypted everything. Hopefully people would be considered innocent until proven guilty, but believing the law always works that way is naive.

EDIT: It’s called deniable encryption: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deniable_encryption

I hope this harms OpenAI in their lawsuits somehow. Their argument of “we can train on the output of others, but nobody can train on our output” has no moral foundation. Pick a lane.

You can click the three dots on recommendations and there is a “not interested” option.

How does that work?

Like, let’s say I’m born in Oregon, I live my whole life in Oregon, I get to vote for national representative and Oregon representatives. I set up a server in Oregon, my server responds to electronic requests that it receives from an Oregon company which I connect to with a wire that goes through Oregon.

Then I get sued for breaking Texas laws. At what point did I become subject to Texas law?

At best, at best, you could say that I’m doing “interstate commerce” which is governed by the federal government, not state law.

I’ve said this before. They are targeting the wrong layer!

They want to force websites to be neutral while allowing the internet providers to block and shape traffic however they want.

Force ISPs to allow access to all websites - good

Force ISPs to allow anyone to host a website at home - good

Force AWS to allow anyone to pay for and host websites on their infrastructure - probably good, but we’re approaching the line

Force websites to host content they don’t want to host - bad

I wonder if the new Twitch competitor that rises in Korea will get the TikTok treatment and our government will just ban it by name?

Send their legal team an email telling them you’re going to update the terms unless you hear from them.

Also, send a bunch of irrelevant shit about what your doing and thinking about and video games you’re playing first, they’ll probably block your email address and then wont see the legally important email.

So, our main interactions happened in the past, your fault and abuse of me happened in the past, and now, in the present, you can slip a little “go out of your way or the legal terms governing our interactions in the past will be altered” clause in an email, and it’s all legal?

(Hold on, let me try applying a rule of thumb that helps me answer legal questions like this: Would this help the rich and powerful maintain riches and power?… Yes. I think the answer to my question above is yes.)

I’d argue the the interactions and faults of the past should be governed by the agreement we had in the past.

They said nothing about boycotting the industry. Buy games from good companies and good indie devs, that’s not a boycott.

We need a branch of government filled with random people. Politicians are people who seek power, the type of person that wins big elections is not a normal person, thus, normal people are not represented in government.

In the US, I wish the house were filled with random people. Randomly select 3 people for each house seat, have the 3 people debate and explain their personal beliefs, and then people vote. This would fill the seat with someone who is mostly likeable, but is still a normal person and not a career politician.

make people who use adblockers “experience suboptimal viewing, regardless of the browser they are using.”

The sad thing is, I consider this an upgrade. I’ll take a moment to breathe and maybe break out of the negative spiral that is modern internet use.

Hey! I came into this threat planning to answer Tribes 2, and I’m surprised I’m not alone.

I miss Tribes.

Tribes 2 (from 2001), Outer Wilds, and Shadow of the Colossus

… announcing the Switch First!

And if the courts rule in a way that limits US company’s ability to train AIs, then I hope they practice their shocked Picachu faces for when people start using AIs created by countries that don’t care about US law.

Everyone talks about how great Nokia bricks are, but you actually do have to be careful not to drop them or you might damage the floor.

A bunch of corporations been recording me and using my data for their own gain for a decade. Now you tell me some normie is going to record me? Do I care?

I was reading about the Unity debacle and thought thank God Gabe that Steam has never pulled shit like this.

I think part of the problem is too many companies are controlled by venture capitalists, or private equity, or whatever you call it. The point is that a single entity owns multiple companies from the shadows.

Companies are supposed to compete and the best company win, that’s good in theory. But when a single shadow entity owns multiple companies they’ll do something like squeeze customers of one company, which drives customers to their competitor, which, surprise, is owned by the same shadow entity.

I wish we had a branch of government filled with randomly selected people.

Imagine if we filled each house seat by randomly selecting 5 people, having the 5 people debate, and then people could vote for which of the 5 they wanted. We would then have a government filled with normal but likable people.

Most US adults never aspire to create anything and thus a tool that is useful for creating is of no use to them.