you could use the clipboard to copy the link and open it in another browser

big oof.

We can conclude: that photo isn’t AI-generated. You can’t get an AI system to generate photos of an existing location; it’s just not possible given the current state of the art.

the author of this substack is woefully misinformed about the state of technology 🤦

it has, in fact, been possible for several years already for anyone to quickly generate convincing images (not to mention videos) of fictional scenes in real locations with very little effort.

The photograph—which appeared on the Associated Press feed, I think—was simply taken from a higher vantage point.

Wow, it keeps getting worse. They’re going full CSI on this photo, drawing a circle around a building on google street view where they think the photographer might have been, but they aren’t even going to bother to try to confirm their vague memory of having seen AP publishing it? wtf?

Fwiw, I also thought the image looked a little neural network-y (something about the slightly less-straight-than-they-used-to-be lines of some of the vehicles) so i spent a few seconds doing a reverse image search and found this snopes page from which i am convinced that that particular pileup of cars really did happen as it was also photographed by multiple other people.

only hobbyists and artisans still use the standalone carrot.py that depends on peeler.

in enterprise environments everyone uses the pymixedveggies package (created using pip freeze of course) which helpfully vendors the latest peeled carrot along with many other things. just unpack it into a clean container and go on your way.

If they had just repeated what I had on my image, I wouldn’t have complained at all.

They posted my address. Stop blaming me for shit other people dead.

My assumption that whatever they posted came solely from your image was because they said:

That barcode above is your full address btw

to which you replied:

But the post didn’t until you posted it.

Do you see how someone looking at that exchange would read it as you acknowledging (via the word “But”) that whatever they posted did in fact come from the barcode, and you are complaining about them decoding it?

If they in fact obtained and posted your full address via some other means, I’m sorry for misunderstanding - and curious how they learned it!

I’m still also confused by the fact that the barcode does not (as far as I can tell) contain a full address but rather just a zip+4 - which you also (still) have visible in text form in the image.

I’m really curious - was it actually your full address, or just your neighborhood? If the former, do you know how they learned it?!

From reading the thread (only after they had already edited their comment) my impression is that whatever they posted came solely from the image you posted. Was that not the case?

Apologies if I’ve misunderstood.

I didn’t. You posted my personal information on the Internet.

They did, but so did you. They could not have posted it in text form if you hadn’t first posted it as a barcode which anyone (still) can decode.

i fully agree that they should have told you privately instead of posting it in text form, and i personally would have deleted their comment if it was on the instance where i could (and if they hadn’t edited it already to remove your address).

however, i must say: you appear to be confused. it has been six hours since their initial comment pointing out that you are doxing yourself via that barcode, and it is clear from your replies that you desire not to have your address published here… yet somehow you have still not replaced the image with a version that censors the barcode.

lemmy has an “edit post” function. if you don’t want your address to be public, you should edit the post to replace the image with one that censors that barcode. HTH!

404 Media neglected to link to her website, which is https://ada-ada-ada.art/

does your resume include a sokoban clone?

that flag is upside down 🤘

Funny that blog calls it a “failed attempt at a backdoor” while neglecting to mention that the grsec post (which it does link to and acknowledges is the source of the story) had been updated months prior to explicitly refute that characterization:

5/22/2020 Update: This kind of update should not have been necessary, but due to irresponsible journalists and the nature of social media, it is important to make some things perfectly clear:

Nowhere did we claim this was anything more than a trivially exploitable vulnerability. It is not a backdoor or an attempted backdoor, the term does not appear elsewhere in this blog at all; any suggestion of the sort was fabricated by irresponsible journalists who did not contact us and do not speak for us.

There is no chance this code would have passed review and be merged. No one can push or force code upstream.

This code is not characteristic of the quality of other code contributed upstream by Huawei. Contrary to baseless assertions from some journalists, this is not Huawei’s first attempt at contributing to the kernel, in fact they’ve been a frequent contributor for some time.

Wasn’t Huawei trying to put a Backdoor into linux?

as far as i know, that has not happened.

what makes you think it did?

fremdscham++ 😬

Marmite was first

The headline should mention that they’re breaking 22-bit RSA, but then it would get a lot less clicks.

A different group of Chinese researchers set what I think is the current record when they factored a 48-bit number with a quantum computer two years ago: https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.12372

I guess the news here is that now they’ve reached 22 bits using the quantum annealing technique which works on D-Wave’s commercially-available quantum computers? That approach was previously able to factor an 18-bit number in 2018.

🥂 to the researchers, but 👎 to the clickbait headline writers. This is still nowhere near being a CRQC (cryptanalytically-relevant quantum computer).

headline was more exciting before i read the last four words of it

All two-letter TLDs are ccTLDs.

However, several of them are not in ISO 3166-1.

Or you could just… learn to use the modern internet that 60% of internet traffic uses? Not everyone has a dedicated IPv4 anymore, we are in the days of mobile networks and CGNAT. IPv4 exhaustion is here today.

Where are you getting 60%? Google’s IPv6 Adoption page has it under 50% still:

(while other stats pages from big CDNs show even less)

You could edit your configuration to change the wireguard connection’s AllowedIPs from 0.0.0.0/0 to 0.0.0.0/0,::/0 so that IPv6 traffic is routed over it. Regardless of if your wireguard endpoint actually supports it, this will at least stop IPv6 traffic from leaking.

ipv4 with an extra octet

that was proposed as “IPv4.1” on April 1, 2011: https://web.archive.org/web/20110404094446/http://packetlife.net/blog/2011/apr/1/alternative-ipv6-works/