wavemode

lol, reminds me of the common misreading "provably safe" / "probably safe"

Is it?

Cursor's security announcement was posted on Oct 29 and says that the malicious extension was live "between about 2:27am PT and 1:35pm PT today"

This article says the attack took place "on Thursday" (which means Oct 29) and began at 4pm ET (which is 1pm PT)

and Binance has been tweeting that the cause of the hack may be a compromised employee laptop. yikes

> I just spent 10m trying to use this

wow pricing has gone way up

In practice, the money you save long-term by reducing headcount is one or two orders of magnitude larger than the money you pay out in severance. Losing your reputation and a lot of legal fees over (basically) pennies tends not to be sound business.

There's a reason corporations almost always settle lawsuits (if they aren't dismissed).

Because the company wouldn't have the money by that point? Seems unlikely. Or because it was an outright lie? Could be grounds for a lawsuit.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "aware". Does awareness imply that someone simply knows that what they did was immoral, or does it also imply remorse? Psychopaths know that their actions are immoral but are incapable of feeling remorse.

interest rates being low doesn't mean banks stop making money on retail deposits. there is still a spread between the interest they pay to the account holder and the interest they make loaning out that money.

lol the exploit is patched, why are people acting like it's a a zero-day? anyone you attack with this, in any case, has to be someone who hasn't yet upgraded their PHP version. it's worth nothing to hide/sit on.

Banks absolutely make money on retail deposits, and you definitely are doing them a favor by putting your money in.

Banks do spend a lot on marketing to acquire a given customer, and will then upsell that customer on more profitable products like loans and credit cards. But having a high customer acquisition cost and then upselling is not quite the same as being a "loss leader" (which sort of implies that marginal profit is negative, which is definitely not true).

I'm not seeing any source for the claim that OpenAI discovered this in February. The source that the article links (a tweet by OpenAI) doesn't claim that.

When I owned an iPod touch, the advantage of jailbreaking was to give your device certain features that the OS just didn't support. (Hell, I remember early days when iOS didn't even have a concept of wallpaper, the background was just black.)

iOS has come a long way since those days so a lot of the most common use cases of the past are no longer necessary. But the principle is the same - the hardware is a general-purpose computer but the software is locked down unnecessarily in many ways. Jailbreaking lets you do things that are outside of Apple's box.

The point the parent commenter is making is that they want Apple to allow people the freedom to intentionally mod the functionality of their device. Not that they literally want single-click PDF exploits to be a thing.

$25B is the reduced judgment. The state was originally awarded over $200B.

I can't make heads or tails of what any of this means or why it's important.

Article's very vague about how the RCE actually works. They talk about the memory corruption bugs but not how exactly those become RCE.

but... Calif have said that AI did find this bug.

Facebook is dead among young people, but there are still some dedicated users.

The thing about Facebook is that it's a far more functional social network than the popular alternatives. It's pretty much the go-to for running local community groups.

Is it so wrong for those who create content to want people to visit their website to consume that content? The alternative being that Facebook and Google summarize everyone's content and keep all the engagement and profit for themselves.

I mean, the real lesson is to not trust Apple. I can do the very basic things the OP article is describing on my phone, let alone a tablet.

Your answer is within the comment you wrote. AI is maintaining tsrs whereas humans are maintaining tsgo.

Your question boils down to "why would humans maintain something?" which could have a variety of answers depending on context.

"simping"? I thought my comment was pretty balanced. I never claimed Pangram is always right.

Pangram can sometimes flag human-written writing as AI-generated. Though in practice, the reason you're usually running something through Pangram in the first place is that the writing has no depth of insight and you already have suspicions due to other reasons. In that context, what almost always happens is that the person who wrote it will come out and say "no, I wrote it myself I just used AI for editing" aaaand, you pretty much have your answer.

> It's easy enough to design them to behave correctly in all cases except actual elections

How? Any possible scheme I can think of that could theoretically allow a tabulation machine to behave differently on audit ballots than it does on real ballots, can also theoretically be mitigated via audit procedures.

The advantage of paper ballots is that the possible ways that the system can be rigged are technologically limited. Either ballots are forged or ballot are miscounted. Both are mitigated by having election officials physically present who validate that voter registrations are valid and that counting is being done accurately, and having those officials be made up of representatives from each participating political party.

Then the defense-in-depth is that paper ballots are inherently decentralized. Even if you manage to pull off a complex operation to rig ballots at a local voting location, you'd have to do the same at hundreds or thousands of other locations to affect the results of the election.

Greeters are an anti-theft measure.

The Doorman Fallacy is real but is poorly named. Doormen weren't replaced by automatic doors, they were replaced by simply not having a doorman. People can open doors themselves - doormen have always been a luxury for the most part.

Law enforcement usually are interested in recovering stolen goods, when you have evidence of where the goods are via GPS. Or eyewitness or video evidence of who has them.

Where people often get disappointed is when all the evidence they have is "my [object] is gone!" and they expect the PD to send out a full forensic team.

There are plenty of GPS trackers which can be used for anti-theft purposes. AirTag isn't designed for that, largely because Apple doesn't want the bad PR.

Streisand effect... why would you write an article about a product you don't want people to know about? What end result would you foresee in doing that, logically?

well, let's say that there are 100 people in your class in dental school. the 50 worst of them ultimately decide that they aren't cut out for it and drop out. you, who were previously in the top half ranked 26th, now graduate in the bottom half.