(6.9-4.2)/(2024-2018) = 0.45 "version increments" per year.
4.2/(2018-1991) = 0.15 "version increments" per year.
So, the pace of version increases in the past 6 years has been around triple the average from the previous 27 years, since Linux' first release.
I guess I can see why 6.9 would seem pretty dramatic for long-time Linux users.
I wonder whether development has actually accelerated, or if this is just a change in the approach to the release/versioning process.
The DJI Fly app is probably considerably worse for security/privacy than most Google apps. DJI has a storied history of sketchy practices in their apps: see here.
Google also won't allow DJI to distribute their apps through the Play Store, because of DJI's weird insistence on being able to push arbitrary binaries to customers' phones entirely free of any third party vetting.
GrapheneOS' sandbox hardening might help somewhat, but I'd recommend avoiding DJI products if you can. If you must use DJI Fly, prefer to use it in a different profile where it can't touch any of your personal apps. Tough when they are singularly the best drone manufacturer for videography though.
OwnTracks is good for location sharing/logging and is open source. Ideally requires you to run your own MQTT server though.
If not using your own server, you can use payload encryption to protect your location data from being snooped by other users. (But ideally you should just run your own server, it's pretty easy.)
I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that an AI got it wrong.
I think the bigger issue is why the AI model got it wrong. It got the diagnosis wrong because it is a language model and is fundamentally not fit for use as a diagnostic tool. Not even a screening/aid tool for physicians.
There are AI tools designed for medical diagnoses, and those are indeed a major value-add for patients and physicians.
I saw a job posting for Senior Software Engineer position at a large tech company (not Big Tech, but high profile and widely known) which required candidates to have “an excellent academic track record, including in high school.” A lot of these requirements feel deliberately arbitrary, and like an effort to thin the herd rather than filter for good candidates.
Yeah bro but eXpOnEnTiAl ImProVeMeNt bro!
And haven’t you heard of Roko’s basilisk? Better be careful what you say on the cybernets, lest our AGI/ASI overlords of 2026 take a disliking to your commentary regarding their eventual supremacy!
Excuse me while I go back to mining Dogecoin until I can buy enough NFTs to make Elon or Sam Altman notice me.
/s
Idk… in theory they probably don’t need to store a full copy of the page for indexing, and could move to a more data-efficient format if they do. Also, not serving it means they don’t need to replicate the data to as many serving regions.
But I’m just speculating here. Don’t know how the indexing/crawling process works at Google’s scale.
Moon is such a fantastic film in its own right. Absolutely shook me when I saw it the first time.
Tl;dr: TPMs are very unlikely to make your privacy better or worse, but they could definitely be abused by a company like MS to make end users’ experiences worse. They could also be used for significant security and privacy gains… they’re a tool.
The TPM can be used to provide a cryptographic binding between aspects of your system’s configuration and a unique key which is resident within the TPM (a process called “attestation”). It can also generate secondary keys that are associated with the base key, and use those to do cryptographic operations like encryption/decryption and authentication.
Telemetry wise, the TPM’s only utility might be to “prove” that the data sent from your PC wasn’t tampered with. That said, I don’t think MS is actually doing that, and they don’t need to in order to be incredibly invasive in their telemetry.
The (imo) worst way in which a TPM might be abused in a user-hostile sense is to detect if the OS has been modified by the user, or if an installation isn’t legitimate, etc. That could be used to disable certain features if you try to install unauthorised software, dual boot Linux or whatever. This would be similar to the smartphones of today, which can for example disable access to banking apps if jailbroken/rooted.
TPMs (>2.0 at least) otherwise have the potential to realise a significant improvement in security and privacy for users, if used correctly. They can be used for encryption and credentials that are bound in hardware and therefore practically impossible to steal. And can detect hardware tampering and potentially foil Evil Maid attacks. Imagine if your login sessions for various websites were bound to your hardware, such that a dodgy extension could never steal your cookies.
Did they ever satisfactorily resolve that issue, or did the media just stop covering it as aggressively? Last I heard they were trying to add solar shields to the satellites to reduce their albedo.
Maybe I'm being stupid, but how does this service actually determine suspicious-ness of instances?
If I self-host an instance, what are my chances of getting listed on here and then unilaterally blocked simply because I have a low active user count or something?
It would be better to have this as a FUSE filesystem though - you mount it on an empty directory, point the tool at your unorganised data and let it run its indexing and LLM categorisation/labelling, and your files are resurfaced under the mountpoint without any potentially damaging changes to the original data.
The other option would be just generating a bunch of symlinks, but I personally feel a FUSE implementation would be cleaner.
It's pretty clear that actually renaming the original files based on the output of an LLM is a bad idea though.