/tech/ - Technology

>>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?

>>15955
holy shit do not buy expensive mediocre hardware just because they've got "open" drivers goddamn

>>15957
>mediocre hardware
not really
they're generally up there with lenovo or dell or whatever

>>15958
gamer shit is always more expensive and worse quality than enterprise shit

Macbook Pro bought from the back of a van.

>>15974
Kek

>>16798

Interesting. This pack was 2 refurbished identical old phones, exact same model number. I can't find the site now but the phones were loaded with security software.

Where do I find out about this, don't say xda. Is there anywhere I'm likely to find an installable security focused rom like what they are selling?

>each preinstalled with firmwares and roms all about the security
If I wanted security I'd do this myself.

>>16799
Dawg, I just post here. Not an expert on this sadly. I would personally start by looking at some r*ddit threads about security-focused roms and work from there all the way to obscure forums like usual.

>>16799
Oh yeah and if the site has any more of this stuff look if they list any of the software they have and use them as keywords.

>>16808

You're right of course. I've gone as far as I can go with that though. Pre built and compiled security and firmware roms exist for this phone. I've just hit a wall trying to find them. Been in this position for months.

>>16809

Thanks anon. I've been doing that for months, no shit. It's like search engines don't work any more, even with complex search terms.

>>16512
>When do you think they will have a working .onion? is it even talked about?
Probably, I have no inside view though

>>16503
kiwifarms was a shithole that deserved to die long time ago
>cuckflare
>>he is mad his favorite bullying webstite got taken down
get fucked dipshits you all deserve it

Kiwifarms is a shitty fascist website. This should have been gone long ago with fucking everyone that uses it.

>>16503
You can just check their telegram for updates about their site hopping and so on if you care.

>>16510
Can't say I'm particularly bothered by Cloudflare dropping them. What bothers me more is I heard about another forum that Cloudlare collaborated with the FBI creating fake logins to track the users, though I am neither totally certain what that forum did (troll raids I think?) nor whether Cloudflare was forced to act like it did because of laws.

>>16596
>kiwifarms was a shithole
Anon I…

Cloudflare is known to release people's personal data to Kiwifarms

>>16787
Thank so much. Would that let me escape a ban from 4chan?

>>16788
not if you're range banned

Literally just unplug your router and plug it back in and if that still doesn't work you have to wait for it to change naturally which can take hours to days.

>>16788
How did you change you IP in the first place? I assume your PC does not act as a router. Your PCs IP is only relevant to your router and other devices on the LAN. 4chan sees the IP (or NAT sth) of your router. Many routers dynamically assign their IPs, so restarting it could change the IP.

>>16790
Aww, cool, thanks!
>>16791
>How did you change you IP in the first place?
I didn't…what did I say to indicate I did?
I made this thread to learn how to do that.

>>16762
Yet with the original Machintosh we had a console marketed as a computer, this is why the Mac 128k and 512k are so hard to upgrade even today. Meanwhile the Atari ST and Amiga can be easily hot rodded with PPC accelerator cards, SSDs, DVD drives, mpeg decoders, floppy emulators and ethernet.

>>16763
We should get a retro computer thread going at some point

>>16752
>preferred design principles
Apple users will literally complain about how they have to buy proprietary peripherals and how their messaging app doesn't work with non-apple users, but then go right ahead continuing to purchase apple products anyway.

no way i don't believe that

Remember a couple years ago when Apple phones had some amazing for that time AI auto-correcting texts based on the most common expressions of its user base and it corrected almost anything to cum farts and the users were all like oooh what a crazy program bug that is hahaa and then the "silly programmers" had to "fix" the "bug"?

>>16610
The problem with neural networks is they only brute force thus why human speed runners can still run circles around neural networks as humans can understand how to break a game while also knowing the that program flags need to be triggered else they can get in a unwinnable state, something much harder to do through brute force.

When planning an economy you have the same issue with humans actually able to make logical causal links rather then simply trying everything till you get a good result.

>>16611
I don't agree that neural networks force anything more than a human child forces things as it is growing and learning. There is certain element of chaos and uncertainty that a simple algorithm probably couldn't handle, but neural networks are better at working with chaos and with limited data than just list of "if this then that" type of simple algorithms that sometimes pass as an AI. I guess we can agree that at some level planning will need computers, programs at varied levels of complexity.

Could I make the argument that this is mostly a problem of insufficient datasets used for training and/or lack in the scale of neural network, since that is pretty much what separates a human (or animal) mind and a current neural network. Not that it probably needs nearly the levels of human complexity to provide results at human level or even better since it will be a specialized thing and when it makes a mistake it will be corrected and it will be improved. Unlike a human that might repeat the same mistake multiple times or at least multiple humans from generation to generation could repeat the same mistake multiple times.

What I however am a bit worried about is "black boxing" the whole planning process with neural networks and algorithms and such. I'm not afraid of any machine uprising, but it's dangerously undemocratic if nobody or only a select few can tell how and on what basis were these certain planning results reached.

>>16611
>neural networks bruteforce
Literally that's what hyperparameters and network design spaces were invented to prevent!

>>16607
It's more accurate to say the applications are much more narrow than the hype makes it seem. They won't be replacing traditional computers.

>>16607
>>16679
We don't yet have universal quantum computing. As I know all of them are specific built for solving a specific quantum algorithm. Also quantum computer don't much benefit every day user at best they are great for science and encryption.