From what I’m told by friends who work in the gaming industry, there are hardcore cheaters that hook into the HDMI and USB via an external computer. Assuming this hearsay is viable, I don’t think you can really prevent dedicated cheaters while keeping the games playable.

score 1 · canonical

This is not a required control, at least in many jurisdictions.

It’s also a particularly onerous control, making it effectively impossible to use hardware not under the control of American cartels. If the USA were to behave poorly on the international stage (inconceivable, I’m sure), this may cause problems for people outside of the USA. This seems rather unwise from a digital sovereignty perspective.

Edit, also:

They are not allowed to decide they don’t need to make good on their debt

If they’re allowed to impose arbitrary barriers, they can dodge making good on their debt indefinitely, which is approximately equivalent.

score 1 · canonical

If banks are allowed to arbitrarily decide they don’t need to make good on their debts to me because they’re involved in those debts, that’s a very strong argument that the laws around this are broken.

score 1 · canonical

They are my delegate when it comes to managing my money, not my peer – a shared activity, to me, implies a roughly equal amount of agency and power on both sides.

score 1 · canonical

Banking is not a shared activity. The bank is holding onto my money on my behalf, and it’s their job to do what I ask with it.

When I can hold onto the bank’s money and make arbitrary demands from them before they get it back, the same way they do with my money, then we can say it’s a shared activity.

score 4 · canonical

deleted by creator

The more common scam is simply calling someone up and asking them to transfer money to their “son” or “mother” who urgently needs it for some reason.

Remote attestation doesn’t solve the common case.

Having walked non-technical family through how to restore computers, the attacks via walking the user through replacing their OS with a backdoored one seem very implausible: they simply won’t understand the instructions, and each attack will take hours of 1 on 1 technical hand-holding. This would include steps where they’re rebooting the device and calling you back. The cost of the attack is simply too high compared to convincing them to use the well attested credentials on your behalf.

Attestation is weak defense against high cost attacks, but it does a good job of locking users into big tech.

There’s one place where attestation helps: if you’re a high value target, and don’t trust the security of your own installed os (eg, you’re in a journalist in jurisdiction that mandates encryption backdoors), you could ensure you are running an OS that hasn’t gotten backdoored when, eg, you hand the phone over for inspection by the police. But in this scenario where you’re a very high value target for a state actor, vendors are part of the threat model, so the remote attestation provided by current systems isn’t enough; you need to be able to enroll your own keys to ensure that the OS you’re running is the one you chose to install. None of the current remote attestation solutions allow users to ensure that they’re running the right custom, third-party build, and that the vendor can’t force an update.

score 2 · canonical

It’s a tough sell to abandon the Internet, but the state of it is making that position more and more plausible.

score 1 · canonical

I would also expect the counts to drop a great deal as the repo gets repacked and deltified.

score 1 · canonical

I’d take a look at the spec instead of the writeup. It’s a lot easier to understand, imo.

https://c2sp.org/sequencehash

score 1 · canonical

It’s emulating a human’s commitment bias, because it was trained on examples that show commitment bias.

score 4 · canonical

Incorrect. Stop trolling.

score -1 · canonical

Yes. And this code seems to have an uncertain threshold; it’s not exactly obvious that this is copyrightable. You’d need a court case to figure out where the transition point is.

score 1 · canonical

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2025/782585/EPRS_BRI(2025)782585_EN.pdf

score 1 · canonical

They can’t have cared that much – they didn’t even bother to write about it themselves. And, what Google did seems to be legal (if not polite), at least in many jurisdictions: AI-generated code isn’t generally considered copyrightable.

score 3 · canonical

That’s also a Unix error, where Greg was blamed: see https://www.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/2021-January/022729.html, https://www.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/2021-January/022733.html

score 3 · canonical