/tech/ - Technology

>>17065
You're the one that wants to be a little Eichmann for Silicon Valley

>>17061
s/just be good at programming/just be good at grinding leetcode bullshit and exploiting the tech interview process/

and also be a white or Asian guy

fucking finally i want web devs to suffer and cry blood

>>17068
Most tech companies pay good and you could be working on something that's not outright evil.

>>17072
Why, you absolute cunt? Lib retards really internalize the "socialism is when you want to make everyone equally poor" meme. Pure resentment of workers being slightly less worse off than you. Seriously, go fuck yourself.

>>17050
I'm sure there's no way this will lead to catastrophic security vulnerabilities that will get found in a decade or so.

>>17054
You have a head start in finding and exploiting them, don't let the opportunity be wasted.

>>17058
>You have a head start in finding and exploiting them, don't let the opportunity be wasted.
Sure just hop into your time machine and go back to 2018.
it's actually quite funny how pathetic lefty /tech/ boards are

>>17062
what's wrong in this thread

>>17062
Uhhhhhhh ok

>>16969
lainchan is pure shit now and full of /g/tards. it used to have a fairly separate culture and lean anarchist before applememe bought it and slowly ruined it

I need this too. Search engines are fucked. The results are so polluted it's a waste of time.

How do I find tech answers relevant to us? How do I find an IRC room?

>>17025

It's hilarious. Posts shitting on anything left and pushing corporatist talking points, while living in an actual corporate capitalist dystopia, on a cyberpunk forum. so lain.

>>16964
What your asking for is too specific to be active. There sheer lack of people with those intersecting interests means you're going to have a tough time finding this.

>>17047
>What your asking for is too specific to be active.

>>17039 here

Could you recomend anywhere less specific that might be active?

>>16838
This is delusional masturbatory cope, and it's not because le normies are too stupid or whatevernon. Perhaps FOSS has decent goals, but is quite idealist and thus doomed to fail in capitalism. At least it's not as cucked as the tech corporation astroturfed open source initiatives though.

>>16888
Well until they get nationalized what else have we got

Fuck fbi.gov

>>16888
What are you even talking about lol you do realize you can just simply install FOSS and that's that, right. It's not that deep

>>16814
glowuyghur

>>17008
>and reportedly runs significantly slower on older machines
As opposed to…? As someone with an old toaster mpv runs the best.

>>17010
MPV generally needs more performance tuning on older hardware (see their policy on hwdec), has permanently higher resource usage or is otherwise broken in comparison to MPlayer (or older MPV releases):
https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/4213 https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/4565 https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/5418 https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/5536 https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/5704 https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/6081 https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/6141 https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/6314 https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/6899 https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/7256 https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/10284
MPlayer presumably had more workarounds for broken GPUs and MPV shows signs of bitrot at an astonishing pace. I also found this gem:
>You must think you are so clever right? You probably felt like in paradise when you clicked on that "close issue" button. Nothing better than rejecting a request of an useful and cool feature with a passive-aggressive "NYEH HEH, no and NO" and not proposing anything at all. "NOT MY ISSUE! WONTFIX", yet VLC is doing it and you are not, mplayer is doing it and you are not, because it seems you are not competent enough to do so. Fully fledged player? Only when it fits you apparently, all you do is strip features and Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>17021
>MPV shows signs of bitrot at an astonishing pace
wait what

>>17009
Google effectively owns Mozilla and would never allow this to happen. they will continue to internally sabotage it

>>17024
that's true but how would they sabotage firefox
what's a browser beyond chrome, chromium and firefox?

I don't see why it would be dangerous, worst case scenario if someone doesn't like pings they can be blocked by most routers. Sounds like a decent idea.

I doubt it would be very useful, I would be surprised if the networking stack did not skew the latency in some way, plus IPs in different geographical regions are almost guaranteed to give latencies in different ranges, and the timeout on not getting a reply will make it very slow, not to mention that it sounds like really easy prey for timing attacks, and an attacker could fuck with the latencies by flooding your network, and so on and so on.

>>16901
>You can't normalize privacy violations, it goes against our species being.
You cannot be serious. How many people do you know IRL? Does the average Joe give the slightest of fucks about his online privacy or what FAGMAN does with his data? The modern economy fucking RUNS on privacy violations - it is very much the norm, despite your grandiose claim about "our species being".

>People should not have to put in extra effort to make their stuff more private. Privacy should be the default.
Nice rhetoric once again, but can you define "privacy" in concrete terms and explain how (and if you can avoid leaning on rhetoric, why) you'd make it the default?

>It's also not true that information technology is inherently hostile to privacy
>So the idea that privacy requires going back to primitive society is Bullshit
I wasn't implying either of those things. I probably should have made it clear that by "avoid technology wherever possible" I wasn't advocating a Kaczynski/Amish way of life, but rather an awareness that there often exists the choice to not consume a product or to not use a service, which is needlessly entangled with technology that exists largely (or even solely) as a means of self-promotion, the artificial stimulation of consumption, and the creation of society's dependence on itself.

>This is just a question of political will.
Hurr durr, isn't fucking anything?

Imo there's no one size fits all privacy solution, it mostly depends on your threat model. The only way to be both truly private and leave no trace behind is to use Tor on Tails. For comms, encrypted messaging is best like PGP, Signal or Matrix.

This is for truly essential, probably illegal stuff. All the rest of your computing, it's good to use an encrypted FOSS system with no telemetry and unsollicited connections like (any) GNU/Linux distro or a *BSD, along with a browser that offers some degree of privacy and ad/tracking mitigations (uBO). Apart from that, I suspect most other so called mitigations offer diminishing returns (mostly thinking of excessive fingerprint obfuscation - Tor does this by default but the way I understand it, it doesn't rly make sense outside of it).

>>16991
it is indisputable that the majority of people hates surveillance, because privacy is a biological need for humans. There is no consent for it, the capitalists are imposing it by making it really hard to not have your privacy violated. And there is manufacturing of consent going on to create a false appearance that many people find this acceptable. Like your post attempting to normalize privacy violations, it therefor has to be dismissed as glowy

A privacy violation can be defined as beginning with uncertainty about whether or not their was an attempt to store personal data of any kind with some kind of system, that is not just somebodies memories. Personal data is all information where personal identification can't be ruled out. Your personal memory can also include personal objects like pen and paper or a computer for personal use only, as long as you are the only one able to access it's equivalent to your brain. (it's also a privacy violation if other people can access your personal memory-aid objects)

Also un-violated privacy-right means you can't consent to having your privacy violated, just like the end of slavery meant that you can't sell your self into slavery voluntarily. (I'm not opposed to people revealing their identity if they are doing a type of media production that relies on being recognizable.)

Privacy means the state can only identify you by means of an in person interaction of asking for your id-card by interacting with a state servant within certain spaces and limitations. Nobody else can have the ability to identify you by means other than the memories in their brain or personal memory-aid objects. (I'm trying to be very forward thinking here and allow for things like a potential dementia-compensation-prosthesis )

it is a known fact that privacy-violating data has been used for extra-judicial assassinations. I think the technical term is "meta-data-signature-strikes by unmanned areal combat vehicles". At the moment it is still very expensive and technically difficult to weaponize privacy-violations for murder even for state-actors, but it is almost certainly going to become cheaper and easier in the future, given the amount of money that is being funneled into this. Therefor i consider privacy-rights as synonymous with a right to live.

It also should not have escaped your attention that thPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>16994
>Also un-violated privacy-right means you can't consent to having your privacy violated, just like the end of slavery meant that you can't sell your self into slavery voluntarily. (I'm not opposed to people revealing their identity if they are doing a type of media production that relies on being recognizable.)
So where exactly do you put a group of normies, sharing their private information willingly and publicly, on a social media platform? Is this not consent to having your privacy violated? Would you make it illegal for any website to allow people to willingly share their own information?

>You can't create spheres where privacy can be suspended, or use of systems of exclusion that bar access unless you give up rights and submit to being violated.
So you'd outlaw, for example, the right of restaurants or venues to only grant you access if you have their privacy-violating app on your smart device?

>>17000
>So where exactly do you put a group of normies, sharing their private information willingly and publicly on a social media platform?
I don't consider posting on social media to be the same as publishing. People are using it like an informal meeting place. Like talking to a stranger at a bus station, it would be considered a violation of privacy if somebody recorded these conversations for the purpose of creating dossiers for profiling.

>Is this not consent to having your privacy violated?
No you can't consent to give up your privacy rights. Just like you can't consent to be a slave. If you made somebody sign a contract they would now be your property, that contract would be considered illegal. Rights are like that, you can't sign them away.

>Would you make it illegal for any website to allow people to willingly share their own information?
I'm not seeking to criminalize the primary functionality of a website like displaying information to viewers or the behavior of users, the problem is harvesting that information and then compiling it into dossiers about people. If I read what you posted and remember it, that is not the same as data-mining user-data for the purpose of profiling, there is an element of systemic amplification that makes this different.
I'm not sure about the technical details, I guess that on a technical level websites should default to the most private option.
You are treating journalists publishing a signed article in a news-paper, as the same as somebody commenting on social media. The former is an official legal document and the latter is informal conversation. I'm also having trouble dealing with the idealism in legal systems, only people can be legal subjects, but legal conventions are such that legal systems also try to regulate objects that are from a materialist point of view legally inert because these objects lack a brain that can understand and follow laws. On top of that I have to work out how to distribute legal burden for all the legal subjects that are involved. And then i also have to account for technical limitations and future developments of technology. This is wrinkling my brain, I can't work all of this out and then condense it into a few lines for a post. This is more like a 100 page essayPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>16982
>>16983
I've worked with hyperspectral cameras (wikipedia pic very related) and yeah, pretty much everything around us have its own characteristic spectrum. usually you calibrate your system based on the light source, and the sun is a known light source. the client had clients in turn that used the cameras both for classifying drugs (telling baking soda from cocaine) and for measuring the fat and protein contents in cheeses

>>16982
>>16983
this pic from wikipedia explain the amount of data. instead of the usual 3 components (red, green and blue) you instead have hundreds or even thousands of spectral lines per pixel
second pic is telling sulfur hexaflouride and ammonia apart

>>16471
Is hidden swimming pool really a thing

>>16983
>>16987
that's crazy, do i have a spectral spectrum? i wnat to see what i look like

>>16997
>do i have a spectral spectrum?
not really. skin color is likely the biggest "spectral difference" between humans. you can likely measure how greasy someone's hair is as well. stuff like that

>>16937
>whats the purpose of more than one channel?
I was asking. Human speech generally sounds fine even at low bitrates, but the 8kb/s mono pcm used by many bluetooth headsets sounds noticeably lofi.

>>16938
It's probably the bitrate and the specific bluetooth codecs/version more than anything that probably causes issues. The vast majority of people use mono microphones anyways. You usually get stereo mics on expensive devices, or if you're trying to do something like a professional recording.

Stereo audio is mainly to make it easier to distinguish particular sources when there are multiple. If you have a couple people talking or a person singing and playing a guitar for example, having two channels with slightly different positioning give dimensionality to the sound and your brain distinguishes them better.

I'm going to buy PC speakers anything I should be aware of?

I'm taking a decibel counter and I'm gonna make them play stuff to judge it

My laptop spits 54-55

>>16937
>why does your GPU have the same name as a quirky sod brand

Way to much money!

The solution in this paper can only work under socialism, you can't have an AI hand out money like that under capitalism. Is there a Marxist critique of mechanism design?

>>16405
not mech. design, given that it's just math and cs nerds trying to rigourously define the shit in game theory
https://p-library2.s3.filebase.com/books/b7cdfd293c34251abed23d7f44a0c893.pdf
is relevant ig?