T156

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

Or, session cookies. They don't need special privilege to access, and if you grab all of someone's cookies, you can probably get some valid session cookies for logged in accounts just by checking for some common domains in one/by keyword.

From there, it would be trivial to get into email, social media, and other accounts to do other things with.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

It would be trivial to add a "please click 'yes' to the UAC prompt to allow verification" screen, so that isn't really going to stop anyone.

I've seen a bit of office malware in the past that did that, where it had a bunch of images instructing you to enable macros and that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

That's probably why they "helpfully" include a little picture of the symbol on the key, so you know what it looks like.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

This feature is extremely insecure now that there’s several AIs that can replicate voices. If a scammer calls you and you say a few words (like if you say “hello” and “sorry, I think you’ve got the wrong number”), a recording of that can be enough for them to replicate your voice.

It honestly wasn't really that secure to begin with, since the audio would have the daylights crushed out of it through the phone system. Though AI probably makes it easier by just letting you have a computer at the end of it spit out some words.

Someone could probably get away with it by sounding vaguely enough like the person calling.

Or just do the tried and true method of going through the in-person support. Voice recognition, at least in my experience, over the phone, has trouble with accents, so someone calling to get around that isn't uncommon. It never works with me, for example, it just goes "please try again" until it redirects me to an agent.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

From the Browser's viewpoint, would there be any difference if the webpage has a JS button to put something in the clipboard, or it having code running in the background that puts things into the clipboard at page load?

It's not like there's that much of a difference, as far as the Browser is concerned.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Depends on how dedicated they are. It's not implausible that some might just shuffle it away as "computer verification stuff", and faithfully paste and execute the code, since it's the computer doing a computery thing, that it says it is doing, and asks you to do, all must be well.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

It probably only takes a staff on the order of a thousand people to make things go viral on the internet.

Depending on the site, maybe less than that.

It wasn't all that long ago that Reddit had "power users" that was just a small handful of people/one person running an account that consistently made it viral on the site.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

I have personally found generative-text LLMs quite good for creating titles. As an example, I have a few hundred tweets that I'm trying to put into a file, and I'll use an LLM to create a human-readable name for them. It's much better than a lot of the other summarisation mechanisms (like BERT) I've tried with it, but it's still not perfect, because the model tends to output the same thing in slightly different words each time, so repeat runs will often result in the same thing with a different title.

But, that is also a fairly limited use case.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago (3 children)

At the same time, the trouble with local LLMs is that they're very resource heavy. Your average household computer isn't going to be able to run one with much usability or speed.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 day ago (7 children)

The QWERTY-type keyboard is a dated relic, especially in the electronic era, where there aren't physical mechanisms to jam because you pushed the buttons too quickly.

This is particularly applicable to touch screens, where the format is particularly ill-suited, and ought to be replaced by something more suitable and intuitive.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

From memory those bio bits did actually make it into the later ships. The sovereign had them, for example.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

The difference between the klingons in TOS and the TOS motion pictures, was that klingons always looked like that, and in DS9, according to Worf, it was due to some unspecified thing that is not discussed with non-Klingons.

But other than that, not really. The official position likely has not changed.

In fandom, it varies. Some people treat it as a cosmetic choice, and that Klingons underwent changes as necessary, and others might stick to the one interpretation of what klingons look like for all of them.

Personally, I'm of the Diaspora opinion, where the varieties of Klingon all coexist, where some of the changes are racial, like they are in humans, and others not.

For example, T'Kuvma house were Klingon supremacists, so it seems likely that some of their more exaggerated features were due to genetic modification on their part to try and enhance their Klingon attributes and remain Klingon.

But B'Elanna? She's just like that.

 

While ordering a crew cut is easy, since it's on the menu, what about other kinds?

Can you just go "I'd like a men/women's haircut" and leave it at that, or do you need something more specific, like saying you want a Charlestone done by a No. 3 to the sides, and a 4 up top?

 

In our world, the police going to a spirit medium for the DL-6 case, and being ridiculed might be logical, since spirit channelling isn't a real thing, but in the world of Ace Attorney, it is.

Not only is it a known and established practice, with detectable physical effects, but the monarchy of at least one country is specifically sought out for their spirit-channelling powers by other governments, so that they can commune with the dead, and receive advice that way.

However, it also seems to be disbelieved, and ridiculed as a pseudoscience, despite that.

 

I've been using "mechanoid" as a classification (similar to humanoid, etc), but a friend pointed out that it's both too generic, and that said inorganics might just consider it biology, with organics being the weird outlier.

 

You wouldn't start off an e-mail with "My Dear X", or "Dearest X", since that would be too personal for a professional email, so "To X" being more impersonal seems like it would make the letter more professional-sounding, compared to "Dear X".

 

Doctor Who zips all the way up and down through time, popping in at any time and place. If you don't have a time machine to follow them around with, it should be impossible to keep track of which incarnation was where. And yet, the Doctor's enemies somehow manage to do just that, with the Daleks being accurate enough to determine he was on his last regeneration on Trenzalore.

 

One of the options for students enrolling into Hogwarts, if they come from a wizarding family, is that they have the option of using a hand-me-down wand. But short of wands being damaged beyond repair, we don't see many people replacing them, even though it happens enough that hand-me-downs are a valid option for new students.

So how long does one last? Does a wizard normally use one wand in their lifetime, or is it the kind of thing where an old, worn-out wand is fine for schoolwork, but you'd need something newer/better for adult life?

 

What caused the shift from calling things like rheostats and condensers to resistors and capacitors, or the move from cycles to Hertz?

It seemed to just pop up out of nowhere, seeing as the previous terms seemed fine, and are in use for some things today (like rheostat brakes, or condenser microphones).

 

You often see people in fitness mention going through a cut/bulk cycle, or mention one, with plans to follow up with the other. Why is it that cutting and bulking so often happen in cycles, rather than said person just doing both at once, until they hit their desired weight?

 

While we hear of the TARDIS having engines that are implicitly essential to it working, we've also see a TARDIS work without the rest of the machine.

"The Doctor's Wife" and "Inferno" show that a TARDIS is capable of operating as just the console, which would seem to imply that they're just a power source to allow the console to do its thing and move the whole ship around, or to allow for the pilot to do silly things like tow an entire planet one second out of phase.

 

One of the recent laws in Trek that gets looked at a bit, is the genetic engineering ban within the Federation. It appears to have been passed as a direct result of Earth's Eugenics Wars, to prevent a repeat, and seems to have been grandfathered into Federation law, owing to the hand Earth had in its creation.

But we also see that doing so came with major downsides. The pre-24th century version of the law applied a complete ban on any genetic modification of any kind, and a good faith attempt to keep to that resulted in the complete extinction of the Illyrians.

In Enterprise, Phlox specifically attributes the whole issue with the Eugenics Wars to humans going overboard with the idea of genetic engineering, as they are wont to do, trying to improve/perfect the human species, rather than using it for the more sensible goal of eliminating/curing genetic diseases.

Strange New Worlds raises the question of whether it was right for Earth to enshrine their own disasters with genetic engineering in Federation law like that, particularly given that a fair few aliens didn't have a problematic history with genetic engineering, and some, like the Illyrians, and the Denobulans, used it rather liberally, to no ill-effects.

At the same time, people being augmented with vast powers in Trek seems to inevitably go poorly. Gary Mitchell, Khan Noonien-Singh, and Charlie X all became megalomaniacs because of the vast amount of power that they were able to access, although both Gary and Charlie received their powers through external intervention, and it is unclear whether Khan was the exception to the rule, having been born with that power, and knowing how to use it properly. Similarly, the Klingon attempt at replicating the human augment programme was infamous, resulting in the loss of their famous forehead ridges, and threatening the species with extinction.

Was the Federation right to implement Earth's ban on genetic engineering, or is it an issue that seems mostly human/earth-centric, and them impressing the results of their mistakes on the Federation itself?

 

One of the ways that you can find out whether a child has magic or not, is to see whether they are able to use it subconsciously, such as by defenestrating them, and seeing if they stop themselves from being killed. But once they get their wands, that use of subconscious magic seems to stop entirely.

Logically, you would expect students to fire off similar magic when their lives were at risk, or their emotions ran particularly high. Is it a function of having the wand that stops it, or is it just a matter of that only happening for really young mages, and that they learn to control themselves as they enter childhood?

 

When we're introduced to the Stargate, it's in the early-mid 90s, so them needing a big, bulky computer system would make sense, but as the show progresses, we see Tau'ri computer technology develop, either conventionally in the form of laptops like what the Atlantis team use, or computer crystals like what they fitted onto their starships.

Through it all, however, the SGC continues to use the same computer with comparatively dated hardware. Why keep it, instead of upgrading it to something more modern? Especially since one of the main issues that the SGC kept facing was that their dialling computer was not sophisticated enough to respond to some of the status codes put out by the stargate, causing all kinds of unpredictable behaviour.

view more: next ›