But do you also sometimes leave out AI for steps the AI often does for you, like the conceptualisation or the implementation? Would it be possible for you to do these steps as efficiently as before the use of AI? Would you be able to spot the mistakes the AI makes in these steps, even months or years along those lines?

The main issue I have with AI being used in tasks is that it deprives you from using logic by applying it to real life scenarios, the thing we excel at. It would be better to use AI in the opposite direction you are currently use it as: develop methods to view the works critically. After all, if there is one thing a lot of people are bad at, it’s thorough critical thinking. We just suck at knowing of all edge cases and how we test for them.

Let the AI come up with unit tests, let it be the one that questions your work, in order to get a better perspective on it.

How do you play the missions? Generally I usually have almost enough for the next warbond after I maxed out the last one. I did hear that this struggle usually happens when people don’t look for POIs, which also results in resources always being rather slow to accumulate.

Overall, the game encourages to not beeline for primary objectives and rather plan out a route, especially for side objectives, as they can often be further away. It does help a lot that crashed resource drops (or what they are called) have a beacon that flashes higher the further away you are from them.

I mean, Theranos was less classic ethical nightmare as it was just a grift, separating suckers from their money. A possible more fitting example in the same vein would be Roger Wakefield’s “studies” on how the MMR vaccines cause autism., where actual children got harmed and spurred on the antivax movement.

Honestly, that’s news to me. Mind linking it? Might be interesting to read about it.

Funnily enough, the Stanford Prison experiment was pretty much just an act, with both parties encouraged to act the way they did. It’s been discredited nowadays.

A better analogy would be the Milgram experiment(s). Often repeated, breaking certain ethical rules (e.g. not telling your test subjects the whole truth about the experiment), with the result of some test subjects taking their own life from the sheer realisation of what they did, and yet the experiment still stands uncontested in its results.

I think it can be both. However they are no justification as to why one should buy and like a game they clearly won’t like for various reasons. Even more, trying to “fix” a game can alter the game’s impact on the player. There’s a reason why roguelikes/roguelites are so hard, and taking away the difficulty will lessen the experience. That’s why most people also, for example, won’t use cheating tools for their single player games apart from screwing around.

And that’s why you need to use aluminium instead.

Honestly, I think that this was a horrid read. It felt so unfocused, shallow and at times contradictory.

For example, at the top it talked about how software implementation has the highest adoption rate while code review/acceptance has the lowest, yet it never really talks about why that is apart from some shallow arguments (which I will come back later), or how to integrate AI more there.

And it never reached any depth, as any topic only gets grazed shortly before moving to the next, to the point where the pitfalls of overuse of AI (tech debt, security issues, etc.) are mentioned, twice, with no apparent acknowledgement of its former mention, and never mentioned how these issues get created nor show any examples.

And what I think is the funniest contradiction is that from the start, including the title, the article pushes for speed, yet near the end of the article, it discourages this thinking, saying that pushing dev teams for faster development will lead to corner cutting, and that for a better AI adoption one shouldn’t focus on development speed. Make up your damn mind before writing the article!

I haven’t watched the video yet, but I think TADC has unwillingly joined the “kids” content mill, which is probably what might be referenced.

Even Gooseworx dislikes how those content mill channels have abused TADC’s popularity for their own profit while neither she nor Glitch can do much about it.

Funnily enough, Signal has circumvented the issue by marking their chat window as DRM content, making it invisible to Recall.

I do agree that password managers are generally more secure than memorable passwords, however, they also pose he Achilles heel of a system, as one password unlocks all. That is why 2FA tops everything, as even with a weak password, as a hacker would need to crack an OTP to gain access, or convince the one holding the 2nd device to unlock the account for them.

However I do want to contest the claim that all user-friendly passwords are inherently unsafe. The Electronic Frontier Foundation did a Deep Dive on randomly generated passphrases and shows how secure the system is by entropy alone.

I’m not the one who you asked, but I’d still give some feedback of my own. Musk as a person is a difficult character. I would even go as far as calling him narcissistic.

• He got thrown out of PayPal for his incessant micromanagement and disruptions to the flow of the company
• he bought himself into Tesla to replace the CEO with himself
• he tends to depict himself as one of the greatest tech geniuses out there, yet often the plans he presents to the public are often poorly thought out and serve no other purpose than to show his “talents”
• when his proposal to build a tiny submarine for the Than Luang cave rescue was shot down and a British diver was chosen instead he resorted to call the diver a “pedo guy”
• his latest attempts in politics, especially concerning DOGE feel completely half baked and, again, how he presents himself in his position feels more like an ego trip than something more reasonable
• he publicly had talks with the controversial German political party “Alternative für Deutschland”, which are currently legally considered “assured right-wing extremists” and have had a history of having Nazis and Nazi sympathisers in their ranks

I generally can’t trust someone who seems to put himself first at everything to handle anything related to security when the role allows him to exploit it for his own gains. And I do not trust someone who supports political groups known for trying to oppress minorities to defend actual rights for free speech.

The question is whether this actually is E2EE, as it’s easy to fake by using a man in the middle attack and hard to prove. The only real way to prove it for sure is to run a third party security audit, like Signal does.

Taking down the old system doesn’t inspire confidence either, as this downtime could easily been used to interrupt old conversations in order to implement a way to decrypt the messages on the servers before passing it on to the actual recipient, as all keys would have to be re-issued.

I do like the hooks on Display Port, honestly. There were quite a few times where HDMI cables came loose while adjusting my screen due to the cable being tied together with other cables for organisational purposes. Putting it back in always a chore then.

I don’t think it is even much of a hassle when unplugging it from a machine, such as a PC. I do agree it’s a pain for monitors however, as the ports usually are in a more indented position.

Honestly, Telegramm always seemed to me a bit shifty since I learnt E2EE for chats was opt-in.

Ich Stimme zu, dass das “einfachste” Indiz bei den Beispielen die Stimme ist. Hier kommt es oft zu Stimmverzerrungen, die stark nach Dekodierfehler klingen, aber nur die Stimme betreffen.

Was auch auffällt sind Hintergrundcharakter. Ein gutes Beispiel ist die falsche Autoexpo. Wenn man die Szenen mit dem Mann mit dem Kinderwagen genauer ansieht, sind die Posen vom Mann und Kinderwagen immer sehr ähnlich. Des weiteren verhält sich der Mann sehr ungewöhnlich. Menschen verhalten sich sehr eigenartig wenn sie wissen, dass sie gefilmt werden, und man merkt dass sie oftmals achtsam die Kamera ignorieren während sie dennoch Aufmerksamkeit der Kamera geben. Teilweise schnelle Bewegungen durch die Anspannung, was die KI immer noch schlecht imitieren kann.

Generell ist die beste Strategie skeptisch zu Medien zu sein und die Inhalte zu hinterfragen.

You are forgetting targeted attacks. A blind attack would pretty much not have much of an effect indeed, however if the attacker knows the machine, then it’s easy for the attackers to exploit these vulnerability if left “out in the open”, and cause havoc, possibly create a lot of damages or leech informations pumped into those machines via old Windows installations.

I think them just throwing so many inspirations around without going into detail as to what exactly inspired them is a red flag. It just feels like they just threw around random references to look interesting. In terms of game development it just looks bad.

Also, I am worrying about the replay ability here. Only having perks and no interchangeable weapons, classes or even some randomisation doesn’t look good. I mean, even Left 4 Dead had the Director system that kept campaigns fresh and interesting, Vermintide (haven’t played Darktide) has classes and subclasses and even the first Killing Floor had a plethora of weapons to make games more interesting.

Quick question about the overwrite passes: is it overwritten with random numbers or is there a sequence of passes?

Is there a benefit from this over the inbuilt Secure Erase functionality in most SSDs/NVMEs? To my knowledge, it instantly dumps the current from all cells, emptying the data on it.

Furthermore, another issue with SSDs/NVMEs is that it automatically excludes bad blocks, meaning that classic read/write operations can’t even reach those blocks anyways. Theoretically that feature could also be used against you to preserve the data on the disk by marking all blocks as bad, rendering them as inaccessible by the file system.

Of course there’s also the issue of Secure Erase not being implemented properly in some drives, leading to the bad blocks not being touched by the hardware chip during that procedure.