People are now also talking about the weirdo trying to dox him instead of just the operator of the website, doesn’t seem like an unreasonable goal.

We're taking about both now, at least one a week it seems. Without the DDoS, we'd mostly forget about the blog. I didn't even know about the blog until the DDoS started.

This is a weird conspiracy theory because people don’t really do that with macs.

That's weird response because people really did that with Macs. People used to run Windows (Boot Camp) on their Mac devices.

iPads and MacBooks are architecturally different devices with different purposes (but soon the difference may vanish). People tend to upgrade their phones/tablets more often than their PCs/laptops. Macs aren't locked down because they are designed NOT to be locked down. You can write drivers for macOS (otherwise it couldn't compete with Windows or Linux) but not for iPadOS.

Yes they work, no it isn’t.

The sketchier ones will get content taken down with fake court orders and similar.

Every single post on this blog is AI generated spam, all commenters seem completely oblivious.

Are you guys okay? WTF is going on with HN?

There’s one interesting detail about this blog though, you can see how the LLM-generated spam improves over the years as models get better.

This underestimates the adaptability of threat actors. Massive cryptocurrency thefts from individuals have created a market for a rather wide range of server-side bugs.

Got a Gmail ATO? Just run it against some of the leaked cryptocurrency exchange databases, automatically scan for wallet backups and earn hundreds of millions within minutes.

People are paying tens of thousands for “bugs” that allow them to confirm if an email address is registered on a platform.

Even trust isn’t much of a problem anymore, well-known escrow services are everywhere.

If you’re turning down meaningful amounts of money because you consider this information too sensitive to share, you are a crazy person.

That the protocol (which predates a lot of legislation) supports it does not mean that your bank supports it. Give it a try though, I'd love to hear about it.

Surely that just depends on how important of a customer you are.

I have no need for this, but have witnessed some pretty exotic swift messaging in my life and I wouldn’t be surprised if e.g. some banks in Africa have to regularly deal with this exact kind of situation.

I think that's enough goalpost moving for one discussion, we've gone from 'this is easy' to 'VIPs can have the rules bent, sometimes'. I've worked for a bank and I have seen some 'exotic Swift messaging' as well but I also know how rare it is. Joe average does not have access to this kind of feature through their telebanking interface, or any other means.

There’s been precisely zero goalpost-moving.

I’m not trying to win a debate here. I’m only pointing out an interesting, exotic detail about interbank messaging. Certainly did not intend to upset you, I apologise if I didn’t communicate clearly enough.

> while the rest of us are prosecuted as harshly as possible if caught

But this is just a lie.

Approximately nobody is prosecuted for copyright infringement.

Okay but people have had their lives ruined deliberately by media companies over it. I'm sure you knew what they meant.

No matter how generously you want to interpret it, it’s obviously false.

We’re moving the goalposts from the government systematically targeting normal people “if caught”, to only a handful of civil cases.

Sure, as a percentage it's very rare - but some people have died as a result: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz

I think most would agree that cases like that act as a deterrent?

That’s not even more than tangentially copyright-related?

> I think most would agree that cases like that act as a deterrent?

I think we could hardly get any further from “the rest of us are prosecuted as harshly as possible if caught”.

I refrained from replying to this until now because I felt this thread was excessively pedantic, but Aaron Swartz is in fact one of the cases I had in mind when writing my original comment about "harshly as possible". To say that his case was only "tangentially" copyright-related is whitewashing the copyright lobby of its complicity in his death. It is, in fact, the primary reason he died. The US government was trying to make an example out of him, and stacked every charge they possibly could, because of his act of copyright infringement. Perhaps, with a shallow understanding of the case, you might see the list of felonies he was charged with and come to the conclusion that copyright infringement was only one small part of the case against him. But the copyright infringement was the crux of the case, and the rest of the charges were "throwing the book at him" in the well-defined meaning of the term[1]. His suicide was a direct result of the overzealous prosecution attempting to ruin his life with charges wildly disproportionate to the harm he caused to society (ie. basically none). It is worth noting he had not even shared the material he had downloaded, although the prosecution made a case on asserting that they believed he intended to.

[1]https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/throw_the_book_at

Now, as for "the rest of us are prosecuted as harshly as possible if caught". You are correct in your pedantry that this statement not expressed as rigorously as it possibly could have been. There are different classes of copyright infringement; "receiving" and "perpetuating" being two of them [to avoid further pedantry, I am not asserting this is precise legal terminology but rather a lay distinction for the purposes of discussion]. It is the latter case which is tried as harshly as possible when caught, and there are many such examples other than Swartz, and I think it was clear my intent when I said it despite the fact that I did not write about the distinction at length.

That is not to say the situation around the former type of copyright infringement is so kind, either. While in some countries it is mostly overlooked, which I believe to be the case in the US, in other countries it is more strictly enforced, such being the case in my own country. While "as harshly as possible" isn't accurate to prosecution against infringement of this nature, you can still be disproportionately punished relative to the damage caused when downloading pirated material for personal viewing, if caught (and ISPs/rightsholders do monitor for it to the best of their abilities).

There is also a third class of copyright infringement to consider which is highly disfavourable to individuals: derivative works. Strictly speaking, even as something as simple as drawing fanart of a character or remixing a song is illegal, even if the activity is completely non-commercial in nature. This is, of course, absolutely ridiculous. Rightsholders know that copyright law reformation would gain tremendous popular support if they were draconian about enforcing their rights against derivative works, and that allowing fan communities to bloom is actually beneficial to their own IP, so enforcement is highly selective. However, that arbitrary, selective nature of enforcement is itself dangerous to individuals, and is sometimes used to punish specific individuals as harshly as possible at the whims of the IP holder. It is true that not everyone is actually subjected to this, but the threat of it happening looms over everyone who expresses their creativity through derivative works.

None of this sits right with me, especially as corporations are hoovering up every piece of copyrighted material they possibly can and creating commercial derivative-work-machines that mass-produce sloppified derivative works, and are getting a completely free pass by the legal system to do so while individuals are still treated like felons for 'crimes' that are at most marginally harmful, or in the case of the creative production of derivative works, not only not harmful but actually beneficial to society.

> It is, in fact, the primary reason he died

That’s plainly ridiculous. If Swartz killed himself over the few months in prison he was facing, the primary reason he died was almost certainly mental illness, and not how the legal system treated him.

I see, you are just a troll. Congratulations on playing me, you got me, for whatever good that does you.

No, I’m just actually familiar with the case.

Why do you talk like a LLM?

You caught me. English is not my native language, so I use an LLM to polish my thoughts and correct my grammar before posting. I want to make sure I’m explaining the technical parts of Qurio clearly, but I realize it can end up sounding a bit "robotic."

I'm a developer and a dad—the project is real, even if my grammar needs a boost! I'll try to let more of my own "unfiltered" voice through.

As far as your query regarding chatGPT, I tried its study mode to write an essay on climate control for a 10 year old kid and instead of focusing on essay, it kept insisting me to correct my grammar instead. And having a switch button to full fledged LLM right in front needs a lot of patience and dedication. I tried conveying this though by taking help of LLM. Thanks

They talk like an LLM because that's what they are. It manages to read and respond to comments in 5 different articles less then the span of a minute.

I’m sorry you think like that. Please be assured, I’m a really dev. Not an AI. Nevertheless , my product solves a practical need and I use AI for correcting my English. Thank you.

I was curious about that given this line:

> the model often "drifts"—like you mentioned

which was attributed to me, even though I didn't ask that

I think the ESOL explanation is believable though, I have a coworker or two who do the same thing

It was attributed towards me actually. :p

> I think the ESOL explanation is believable though, I have a coworker or two who do the same thing

But it’s also exactly what a dishonest LLM that’s not yet able to communicate convincingly would say.

Hi, it’s me the dev! I seriously don’t have captcha’s option to prove I’m human! Nevertheless please try the engine, that’s the ultimate purpose

Do you really believe 16 hours of use daily is not indicative of an addiction? It deserves a headline as it is is a controversial statement that aims to minimise criticism against social media platforms and thus needs to be challenged / debated in society. If social media addiction is not treated as a social problem, the people will not pressure the government to regulate it. That is why social media platforms are claiming that it is only (a personal) problem (of some individual) if some use it for 16 hours while others suggest that it has become a societal problem because its users are now addicts. Social problems needs political solutions to address, and in this case one of the suggested ways is government intervention (through regulations).

> Do you really believe 16 hours of use daily is not indicative of an addiction?

It can certainly indicate that, but typically does not.

Most instances of problematic overindulgence have absolutely nothing to do with addiction.

Sure, if you want to to be technical and pedantic about it, everything is only a "problem" until clearly diagnosed by an expert! (See Behavioural addictions: What are the signs of addiction? - https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/6407-addictio... ).

That he said it or that the label “problematic” is correct?

Both of the above, and also that the label “addiction” is typically not correct.

> It is absolutely revealing that the Instagram boss can’t openly admit that 16 hours of daily use is a problem.

He literally said it is problematic!

> the Instagram boss can’t openly admit that 16 hours of daily use is a problem.

> Instagram boss says 16 hours of daily use is "problematic"

Not the best argument, as the answer is breathing.

If Instagram is as omnipresent as breathing we still have problem.

Sure, I totally agree with the sentiment, but it's not the right way to formulate an objection.

I don't think it's okay to breathe for 16 hours a day.

Take meth for example, if someone can use it for only one hour a day is it a problem?

Who and what in your life is 16 hours of Instagram taking you away from?

Instagram is garbage by the way for any Meta people in this thread. I’m tired of not seeing anyone I follow because you’re putting ads and viral videos I don’t give a fuck about in front of me instead. No wonder it wastes 16 hours, scrolling through shit trying to find something from someone or something you follow.

Your app is literally useless for communicating or keeping up with anyone I follow.

Facebook died when it lost interest in being Facebook and wanted to become TikTok.

Instagram died when it lost interest in being Instagram and wanted to become TikTok.

Your products and company should be banned, and everyone on your board belongs in jail.

breathing