For the record: it was both, more or less. Some of the elders in this community were around in the Slashdot days, so it was sort of a pun on our shared cultural heritage, albeit not geopolitical strategy.
What you're describing applies to coffee shops where a latte has the same amount of coffee regardless of the cup size.
Others are mostly describing someone who makes coffee for themself at home or in a break room. That person likely chooses a cup size depending on how much they coffee they want, how frequently they want a refill, etc.
Novel obfuscation, with a novel idea, is hard to invent. Novel obfuscation, where it is only new to that codebase, is easy(ier) to flag as suspicious.
While bad actors would be wise to ensure low-cooldown users are unaware, I would not say they can "simply" ensure that.
Code with any obfuscation that evades static analysis should become more suspicious in general. That's a win for users.
A longer window of time for outside researchers is a win for users -- unless the release fixes existing problems.
What we need is allowing the user to easily change from implicitly trusting only the publisher to incorporate third parties. Any of those can be compromised, but users would be better served when a malicious release must either (1) compromise multiple independent parties or (2) compromise the publisher with an exploit undetectable during cooldown.
Any individual user can independently do that now, but it's so incredibly time-consuming that only large organizations even attempt it.
No, it doesn't require a battery door, even for phones that don't meet the exception you mentioned.
Over a decade ago, I replaced a phone screen over a few hours, involving a couple dozen screws. During that, I had to remove the battery. (Replacing only the battery would have been easier.) I'm a layman, and all the screws were Phillips. That's sufficient to be replaceable.
Yet your earlier comment said "200x-$currentYear" not "200x-$modifiedYear" in reply to someone automatically inserting the year. That shows a misunderstanding of copyright AND an intent to mislead when you believe others view it as last updated.
You're better off omitting it entirely in generated web pages. No one cares unless they don't understand copyright, the year shown isn't the current year, and they're already looking to find fault. In other words, for those that treat it as last updated, they must already be struggling to find value when they scroll to your copyright notice, and at that point, after feeling the page looks stale, is seeing the current year going to change their mind?
I'm not sure what the point being made here even is, beyond arguing just to argue?
It does not matter in the US whether you use the current year or last modified date. At worst, omitting a date entirely makes it easier for the other guy to claim "innocent infringement", which only reduces your damages. Show me one US court case from this century where the tail of a date range had a material affect on the outcome.
Moreover, it is an objective fact that people use the current year and the modified year in web pages being written today. And based on the comment that kicked this whole chain off, clearly people are using it as a signal of when the page was changed.
For videos with either kid gloves or being completely blasted, there's a reason those are the videos that go viral, and it's not because they're the typical average.
> The cops that pull them over always treat them in the softest and most deferential way imaginable.
Without denying I have seen preferential treatment first-hand, you might take a step back and imagine...
You're dealing with someone who entered a career known for its machismo, where they received training on how to use physical violence, including training on shooting a weapon that could quite possibly be with them. This person has been drinking or is flat-out drunk, and it's only a matter of minutes before they realize how screwed they're about to be.
Treating them softly is what you SHOULD do.
We should be asking whether we are content to find ourselves in a world where that soft approach is considered the noteworthy exception.
What's stupid about using a soft approach, instead of a violent approach, to take away a driver's license from a drunk driver?
Why do police so frequently resort to violence that you're probably not surprised to hear bystanders in NYC were shot by cops pursuing a subway turnstile hopper? Let the implications of that sink in for a moment.
Why have I heard so many times about people losing their life after being pulled over for speeding?
> What's stupid about using a soft approach, instead of a violent approach
The options aren't soft vs violent.
The problem with the soft approach is it's all about giving the suspected impaired drive more chances to prove they aren't impaired. It's about avoiding removing them from the road, not avoiding a violent confrontation.
While cops shouldn't be dicks to everyone and they should always work to de-escalate, what they shouldn't do is let someone they think is impaired drive off. And that's what the "soft" approach is all about. It's about letting the arresting officer make excuses like "well, they don't seem THAT drunk" or "Well, they seem a little buzzed, but not that bad."
For a regular citizen, the cops would do a field sobriety test, a breathalyzer blow, and then arrest if it comes back high. That's what they should do for everyone they suspect is impaired.
If we wanted to argue for a softer approach, then I could see removing the criminal aspects of a DUI and instead just focusing on getting that person off the road and potentially revoking their license. But in no case should a cop let someone drive off that they suspect isn't fully sober.
> [Letting someone they think is impaired drive off is] what the "soft" approach is all about. [...] But in no case should a cop let someone drive off that they suspect isn't fully sober.
You are reading more into the vague "softly" term than is present in this thread, instead of "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> The options aren't soft vs violent.
That there is a spectrum instead of a binary choice is what I discussed, though maybe it's a regional language quirk: "What's stupid about using a soft[er] approach, instead of a [more] violent approach..."
Anyone can land upon a good strategy -- especially because these strategies get honed by evolutionary processes. For them, this is a good strategy. Enough people, especially their supporters, have been trained to not be suspicious when they are non-specific. From my armchair, I don't see any downside to being non-specific in their current environment. Yet the extra delay gained allows so many advantages, if you're the type to use them.
> ...using other models, never touching that product again.
> ...that the LLM even suggested (without special prompting) to do something that I should have realized was a stupid idea with a low chance of success...
Since you're using other models instead, do you believe they cannot give similarly stupid ideas?
I'm under no misimpression they can't. But I have found ChatGPT to be most confident when it f's up. And to suggest the worst ideas most often.
Until you queried I had forgotten to mention that the same day I was trying to work out a Linux system display issue and it very confidently suggested to remove a package and all its dependencies, which would have removed all my video drivers. On reading the output of the autoremove command I pointed out that it had done this, and the model spat out an "apology" and owned up to ** the damage it would have wreaked.
** It can't "apologize" for or "own up" to anything, it can just output those words. So I hope you'll excuse the anthropomorphization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Always_Chickens_Out
reply