selectively

7 ms·

1.
by selectively 1mo ago
It wasn't written for the HN crowd. Someone who is a 'tech person' and uses macOS would know what SuperDuper is.
2.
by selectively 2mo ago
We're just throwing straight up piracy on HN now? We're vibing piracy now? Felonies via API?
3.
by selectively 2mo ago
Escobar likely did less societal harm than Zuck.
4.
by selectively 4mo ago
Very unethical behavior combined by very bad security posture from the vendor. Bad.
5.
by selectively 4mo ago
Obnoxious author. Refusing to 'pay twice' for a game they care enough about to go through all this trouble + deeply obnoxious bit about Windows 11 at the end of of the post.
6.
by selectively 4mo ago
Generated by AI + no one cares about AGPL license compliance (and they aren't violating the AGPL anyway - your AI model is confusing the AGPL for actual GPL).
7.
by selectively 4mo ago
Gruber is a monstrous person. He's also written many different pieces that are more or less content-free anti-Korean racist screeds. The world would be much better if he'd retire and never speak in public again.
8.
by selectively 4mo ago
Because they are making poor choices. But even gambling is not equal to physical compulsion.
9.
by selectively 4mo ago
Yes, no. Yes, they want to make money. No, addiction is physical compulsion and nothing else. Despite the effort to redefine that term to cover all kinds of things, an app is not equal to heroin.
10.
by selectively 4mo ago
That's a study. I can link you studies that say violent video games cause aggression, that porn causes rape, etc. Studies are products of the biases of the researchers.
11.
by selectively 4mo ago
You were able to use it. Nothing lasts forever. People need help with a world that is hell, not video game related problems.
12.
by selectively 4mo ago
I do not believe 'AI psychosis' is an actual thing.
13.
by selectively 4mo ago
Can't say I support this. Legislative bodies should be dealing with actual problems in the world that meaningfully make the lives of regular people worse, not gamer entitlement.
14.
by selectively 4mo ago
Lunatic, likely AI generated comments here. This is an app for deliberately causing pollution. The users of that app should be criminally prosecuted and lose their license/spend a few months in prison. The price differential between th
15.
by selectively 4mo ago
PR work for Apple
16.
by selectively 4mo ago
Markdown is a Gruber thing.
17.
by selectively 4mo ago
No, I don't. I don't want anything that has to do with John Gruber, ever.
18.
by selectively 5mo ago
No.
19.
by selectively 5mo ago
This is an outrageously dumb thing to say. BIg Tobacco knowingly sold a product that physically addicted (the only real form of addiction) its users and killed them . Facebook is not that.
20.
by selectively 5mo ago
Just went dark.
21.
by selectively 5mo ago
Are you claiming that if I sell 0day through a broker to the national Government of a given jurisdictions that the national Government of that jurisdiction is going to criminally penalize me? If so, that's a bit naive. In the actual wo
22.
by selectively 5mo ago
Harder and harder to get good policy like what you describe when tech-adjacent people loudly argue for criminal penalties for anything other than coordinated disclosure :(
23.
by selectively 5mo ago
(The buyers are the NSA, the IDF, Cellebrite, NSO and its successor corporation and that kind of thing. Depends on what you are offering) You'll learn who the buyers are if you routinely have the really good stuff to sell! If you are o
24.
by selectively 5mo ago
There are two options: 1. Status quo. Researchers are free to disclose to a vendor, free to sell vulns to legitimate companies, free to do full disclosure if they want. This situation benefits security. Researchers are able to pay their bil
25.
by selectively 5mo ago
No, there are users who want those to be norms. Qualified researchers happily sell substantive vulns to people who pay (Governments/Cellebrite and companies like that) enough to quell any complaint.
26.
by selectively 5mo ago
Those norms do not exist. Those are people asking companies to do stuff to benefit the person complaining for free, and many companies will not do that.
27.
by selectively 5mo ago
Who cares about how you are seen when you are selling 0day for big bucks? The bad actor makes more money than the 'legitimate' one without breaking any law. Punishing someone who didn't alert distros despite a patch being ava
28.
by selectively 5mo ago
Many users abuse subscriptions in violation of the TOS to run tools like OpenClaw is automated ways. It's an anti-abuse measure. Makes perfect sense. Anthropic's business model is the API business. The $200 subs are a paid demo of
29.
by selectively 5mo ago
Researchers are under no obligation to engage in coordinated disclosure and are free to sell 0day for profit. Just fyi. Be glad it was disclosed at all. Be glad a patch was available prior to release.
30.
by selectively 5mo ago
Those people would be subjected to permanent, identity-bound bans.

More ›