Complete AI slop. "Contents" lists hallucinated directories that don't exist in the repo, and the report is pretty much just that log entries with the word "debug" in them supposedly mean that debug logic is enabled.
Edit: There isn't any exploit or bypass described here, the claim is just that "debug logic" is enabled on production devices.
Please don't buy "grey market" MS keys (i.e. super cheap keys or keys for products not sold to end users, like LTSC).
Either buy keys from legitimate vendors or use alternative activation methods (emulated KMS, etc.). I believe a lot of these grey market keys come either from MSDN subscriptions or leaked MAK keys, in either case, you aren't really paying for the product, you're just funneling money to sketchy people.
It also has an issue with remembering the last mounted .iso if its filename is beyond a certain length, in which case it will instead load a random (although always the same) .iso in the same folder.
I mainly had this issue with the default Windows install image names.
Fragmentation can be a bit annoying, especially when using exFAT, which doesn't appear to have defragmentation tools available. It can be avoided by never deleting files and instead reformatting every so often.
That being said, it's still a fantastic tool because all the images "just work" everywhere a class-compliant USB optical drive would.
No sense using exFAT because it's not as widely-supported. Don't have to reformat fat32 because File Allocation Tables are extremely simple. Move all files off, and then move them back serially, and presto, no more fragmentation.
FAT32 is not an option because Windows images these days are all over 4GiB. exFAT is very widely supported; the alternative would be NTFS, which doesn't work well (no write support) on macOS.
> Having anything open like cheat engine or Tsearch while you join a lobby is a guaranteed ban no matter what.
I think a no-brainer solution here, which I am surprised isn't used, is to just immediately kick the account when a well-known signature, such as CheatEngine, is detected. If the program isn't even attempting to get around VAC, there is no point in doing the whole "delayed ban" thing.
Or even banning at all. As you say, kick out of an abundance of caution. Any serious attempt at rule breaking is going to involve at least some basic obfuscation so if that's missing it's a strong indicator of a false positive.
That said, my snarky response is "I hope you learned your lesson about the need to restrict proprietary software to a container at all times".
I'd still pick RDP for remote managing any day, its server and client are so much better integrated (clipboard, peripherals, etc.) for this task than Sunshine/Moonlight. It also avoids the whole issue of setting up a virtual display output[1] as is required by Sunshine. I use both for different tasks.
On a related note, as of recent versions, Sunshine and Moonlight stable releases support 4:4:4 chroma subsampling and bitrates up to 500Mbit/s with HEVC, which results in almost indistinguishable image quality compared to native output[2]. Bitrates that high are unusual in normal content, but at least Apple's Media Engine (on M-series Macs) appears to be capable of decoding it.
[1] Here is a pretty good solution that piggybacks off of Parsec's driver, which is fully signed, though its EDID lacks HDR support. The project also includes a C header file for custom implementations: https://github.com/nomi-san/parsec-vdd
[2] Note: I found that I had to enable 10-bit color streaming (which is available when using Parsec's driver) to get rid of some gradient banding that isn't present in native 8-bit. I suspect it's some encoder and/or color space issue.
I wonder how Apple's ProRes would work for remote desktop over wired networks, especially now that consumer equipment is starting to move beyond 1GbE. They have hardware encode and decode on everything newer than the original M1, and ProRes only does intra-frame compression so a fairly low-latency implementation should be possible.
The question is if it still works "enough" to update to a working firmware, or if it's so broken that it can only be fixed by flashing the EEPROM directly.
An interesting implication of this is that it would point to Firefox being considered a service from Mozilla (hence why they need a license to facilitate your use of the program).
If we now look at their "Acceptable Use Policy", we can find this:
> You may not use any of Mozilla’s services to [...] Upload, download, transmit, display, or grant access to content that includes graphic depictions of sexuality or violence, [...]
So one could interpret this all to say that you're not allowed to view or download porn via Firefox. Additionally, "graphic depictions of violence" could extend to things like the sort of bodycam footage and reporting from war zones frequently seen in news reports.
I’m not clear on how this solves the problem. Counterfeits can be hard to detect. Counterfeit food, toiletries, and electronics can poison you or start a fire. And my redress is a generous return policy?
Inventory commingling ruined any respect I had for them. They've done that for a long time but I still am beyond pissed by the trend they started of being a front for third party sellers, all French retailers copied them (darty, fnac, cdiscount etc) and searching for products sold by trustworthy entities on the internet is now a nightmare.
Everyone imitates the market leader so it really feels as if competition doesn't exist as an alternative to amazon here. They're all as bad, and sometimes worse.
But Firefox also needs to generate money somehow, right? A small advert to amazon/hotels/whatever that can be removed basically permanently with a small change in the settings is about the best balance I can think of.
If you donate to Mozilla, I have more sympathy for you. Perhaps they could make it so that if you have a Firefox account linked to a donation that they remove this, or something.
I'm fairly sure that's for donating to Mozilla, where the funds go who knows where (kidding, it goes to the executives and marketing).
Is there anywhere I can donate to Firefox, specifically the development and the maintenance of the browser itself, and only the browser? Maybe donating directly to developers working on Firefox would be the best approach here.
That's for donations to the Mozilla foundation, they aren't used to fund development of Firefox. Mozilla corporation and Mozilla foundation are distinct entities.
Nope! In fact, last I heard, donations to the Mozilla Foundation could not be used at all for the browser, which is developed by the Mozilla Corporation.
> But Firefox also needs to generate money somehow, right?
WHY? They get hundreds of millions a year to place Google as the default search engine. That’s a shit ton of money. At that level they could even put some away every year for an endowment. Why does a nonprofit need to generate even more money by violating its users?
Money is drying up because Google is being ordered to terminate the deal, and they refused to save it and rather spend it on flights to Zambia to make a festival session about "feminist AI alliance for climate justice" "centering on LGBTQIA+ individuals". Their words, not mine.
Never hear of that person before, but before listening to anyone, I like to go through their material to see if they at least give the impression of a balanced and impartial person.
> The company made popular by making modular laptops now makes a desktop with soldered-on RAM. Bonus: They appear to support targeting children with Trans cartoons.
> Leftist Extremists Leave Linux Kernel, Demand Conservatives Be Banned
> Leftist Linux developers demand those with wrong politics "be removed". "Right-wing people are not welcomed," says one. "You can [CENSORED] right off from my projects," the other.
In this case, it seems they are neither balanced nor impartial, so beware people who chose to engage with that. It seems Lunduke is yet another culture-warrior masquerading like "The last bastion of truly independent Tech Journalism". I'm sure they get lots of traffic from it, but it's not really a reliable source for facts.
Outside of all this culture war stuff, on a much more tangible subject, I guarantee you that for the money they sank in their flashy Paris headquarters[1,2] (thousands of m² in one of the fanciest areas), they could have paid for hundreds of man-years in very decent French engineers wages.
Let's be honest, they just spent the Google money like if there was no tomorrow, and an individual that won't even see from afar that much money in my whole life, I won't be donating to save them from their pitiful financial choices.
Sure, I agree with Mozilla not being the greatest steward (as written minutes before the comment you responded to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43195286), I'd much more like Firefox split off from Firefox.
But regardless of our feelings for Mozilla being one way or another, listening to authors who clearly are over-emotional about subjects isn't a way to learn more.
There is no such thing as balanced as that implies a natural neutral point. It's like saying you want to hear arguments both for and agains murdering children. All you're doing is filtering for people that conform to YOUR pre-conceived notions.
> There is no such thing as balanced as that implies a natural neutral point
It does not, professional journalists are able to provide two different points of views in their articles, granted they work for a professional publication. I'm not sure where you're from, but seemingly it isn't very popular in the US, but in other countries it does exist.
> All you're doing is filtering for people that conform to YOUR pre-conceived notions.
I'm trying to filter away people using overly emotional language, regardless of their political or moral leanings. I don't care if you're up, right, down or left, using clickbait language gives me reservations about even listening to the author.
Are those “professional journalists” in the room with us right now? … because the media has made a conscious effort to fire anyone unbiased for the last 20 years
Why shoot the messenger? Not a rhetorical question, answer it if you are able to.
diggan, your way of thinking needs to face strong criticism. It brings you into the realm of make-belief and delusion and turns you away from the truth. Dealing with the trappings instead of the essence of things is no way to live in this world. Be level-headed and apply rationality, otherwise I predict you will see supposed enemies hiding behind every stone and then it will end badly for you.
FWIW, anyone can follow to the sources in order to come to the same summary, or through interpretation to the same conclusions. It only takes half a minute with a Web search and see that B.L. indeed is a reliable transmitter of facts. It took you longer to sow the FUD than to simply do the verification! *smh*
It is not "sowing FUD" to mention that someone has a history of posting ridiculously emotionally charged headlines/content, and point out that that habit might also color the truthfulness of their reporting.
Yes, it is. I have shown the sources, and thus quite demonstrably refuted diggan's claim of Uncertainty at the end of his post. The other parts of his post are very much emotional appeal, trying to get a HN reader to feel Fear and Doubt.
You seem to want to join in into same self-deception and denial of reality. Don't do this any more, it just brings suffering.
It is a good thing that we all have the freedom to check the veracity, and do not have trust gatekeepers and do not have to short-circuit by taking anyone's word.
>You seem to want to join in into same self-deception and denial of reality.
No, I just avoid "journalism" from people who only post with wildly emotionally charged language. If the reporting speaks for itself, you don't need to prime my feelings with your headlines or interpretations.
>Don't do this any more, it just brings suffering.
fine, but applying that method to journalism will essentially run you out of trustworthy sources to gather news and information from the very same day.
Second, for topics I care about, I look at multiple outlets and/or their reported sources so that I can hopefully isolate the facts and form my own opinion.
And yes, for each outlet I weigh their reporting by how much emotionally charged language they use. Or in this case, whether they shoehorn something about trans people into an article about RAM in addition to the other emotionally charged language.
Firefox is supposedly owned by a nonprofit organization that's expected to act in the user's interest.
Nonprofits are supposed to raise funds from donations and grants, not via enshittification for the primary subject of their mission.
The problem is that besides being a supposed nonprofit (Mozilla foundation), the same people also want to larp as a sillicon valley tech business (Mozzilla corp which largely shares leadership with the org) with insanely high saleries funded anti-user bullshit.
Amazon doesn't even particularly care whether the items they sell are even legal in the country where they sell them.
FRS radios for example. Fine in the USA, not fine in Australia where those frequencies are used for public safety radio systems, and where they are illegal to possess because they don't comply with the applicable EMC standards.
It's a bit off topic I guess, but I actually see that as a fringe benefit as opposed to a drawback. Other than some exceptional edge cases I'm opposed to item possession itself being illegal - it all comes down to usage. (To be clear, I'm not opposed to strict ID recording requirements in some not-quite-as-exceptional edge cases.)
Causing a mess for legitimate users of the radiofrequency spectrum, and exposing unwitting customers to prosecution is a plus?
To be clear, you can buy equivalent products on UHF CB frequencies locally, that you can use without interfering with ambulance services for the same price.
This is legislation that exists for a very good reason.
Because Amazon has a legal duty under consumer law to only sell goods which are fit for purpose, be of acceptable quality etc. It would be hard to describe a thing that is unlawful to use in the market it was sold as being fit for purpose.
That is debatable if that is hyperbole but I might be moving the discussion a bit too much off topic so ye maybe more neutral language would have been preferable.
Yeah, it's annoying, but also nothing particularly new I believe. There seem to be two types of garbage links added by default:
1. "Sponsored shortcuts" that can be "easily" turned off in `about:preferences#home`
2. I guess "non-sponsored" shortcuts? I believe they pointed to Facebook, eBay, and something else (Pinterest maybe). Those have to be removed/"blocked" individually. I think they end up in `browser.newtabpage.blocked` after doing so.
I don't like that this is a thing I have to do whenever I set up a new Firefox install. It's not often, to be fair, but it still sucks nonetheless.
I don't read it the way you say. The more restrictive terms are for use of services. If you use firefox, you have to agree not to use the Mozilla services for the prohibited categories, but there are many uses of the browser that are not using Mozilla services.
If you accessed graphic content using the browser, you are not violating the terms unless you put that content up on a mozilla service somewhere. The obvious issue would be some type of bookmark sync. If you bookmarked a graphic url you might violate the terms when it syncs to mozilla, but even then it would be hard to argue that you are granting access to your future self, so unless you used a bookmark sharing service provided by mozilla, I would say its a gray area. So disable bookmark sync. I typically disable all external services in my browser so this would not be relevant.
But my point is that even though you have to agree to the use policy when downloading the browser, it doesn't mean it governs all use of the browser.
> I don't think their AUP considers the browser software a service.
One would think so, right? But why does Mozilla want me to "license" to them everything I "upload or input [...] through Firefox"[1]. Where do the "facilitated services" start and where do they end? It sure would be nice if they could draw that distinction, without it, the cautious interpretation would be that that everything is a facilitated service.
> I don't think their AUP considers the browser software a service.
It is not just about their services! They clarify it by writing: "Your use of Firefox must follow Mozilla’s Acceptable Use Policy, and you agree that you will not use Firefox to infringe anyone’s rights or violate any applicable laws or regulations." Src.: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/
GitHub now offers "artifact attestation"[1], which would be ideal for this use case. It records what build process binaries originated from, so they can still be published elsewhere while remaining verifiable.
Edit: There isn't any exploit or bypass described here, the claim is just that "debug logic" is enabled on production devices.
reply