Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | PUSH_AX's commentslogin

Is Jq slow?


I'd pay to watch someone say this in a court of law...


The hardest part about any creativity is hiding your influences

This is poetry.

So they’re training a model

> There is so much money to be made repackaging open source these days

These days? Almost every tech offering in existence is 1000+ OSS dependencies gaffer taped together with a sprinkling of business logic.

Cursor isn't a shocking bit of software to pay for, its investment however...


Probably a country that has done so in the past, like the UK…

> how does one defend against an attacker or red-team who controls the CPU voltage rails

The xbox does have defences against this, the talk explicitly mentions rail monitoring defences intended to detect that kind of attack. It had a lot of them, and he had to build around them. The exploit succeeds because he found two glitch points that bypassed the timing randomisation and containment model.


I hope Apple is paying attention, since their first gen AirTags are vulnerable to voltage glitching to disable the speaker and the tracking warning.

I don't see much motivation for fixing that when I can purchase a nrf52xx Bluetooth Beacon on aliexpress for €4 and flash it with firmware that pretends to be 50 different airtags, rotating every 10 minutes, and therefore bypassing all tracker detections.

What's the battery life like on one of those?

Months if the firmware properly sleeps.

They're also, as it turns out, vulnerable to a drillbit

It's pretty trivial to just open it up and disconnect the speaker too. I took one apart to make a custom wallet card out of it and broke the speaker in doing so; the rest of it worked perfectly fine (though obviously the warning would still work).

Apple has a team that works on glitching protection for their phones. Disabling the speaker on AirTags is a very different threat model.

Isn't airtags completely and utterly broken, or has anything changed?

“Trust me bro”


if a person pays for a Nike product and receives a counterfeit, are we saying no harm no foul if they don’t realise?


Nike determines what counts as a Nike product; it they are selling it, it is not counterfeit; It may be poorly made or made in ways you didn't expect, but nor counterfeit.


No, i'm not.


Good. Your initial comment makes no sense.


I'm not retracting my original comment, i just don't think your analogy is related to what i said and in many ways is the opposite of what i said.


If you don’t recognise the parallels then I don’t know what to say really. All the best.


To use your own analogy, surely you must see there is a difference between someone attempting to purchase nike shoes and being tricked vs someone intentionally seeking out counterfeits (e.g. to get a deal)

My comment is wondering to what extent the clients are "tricked" vs to what extent they know (or suspect) its not the real OF model and dont care as long as the fantasy is intact.


That’s not what they paid for, they paid to speak to person x, not person y.


Which makes me wonder why Person Y doesn't just spin up their own account, since they've already got warm leads.


Because what Person Y is doing is no more the whole of the job than what Person X is doing, and OF can more easily detect (though its still far from perfect, I've heard) and aggressively cracks down on when the person doing Person X's job is not the person who legally owns the account.

They paid to interact with a computer, and they did. On the Internet nobody knows I'm a dog, and that's ok.


This is not what is advertised, and if it was there would be no money in it.


I've been alive for several decades and almost nothing I've gotten was exactly as advertised.

I'm not saying that's good, but it's consistent with reality.


Consistent with what you think of as reality. For all you know, you're being Truman Show'ed.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: