Uh, as someone who does malware analysis, sandbox detection is not easy, and is certainly not something that a non-malware-developer/analyst knows how to do. This isn’t 2005 where sandboxes are listing their names in the registry/ system config files.

There is leaked Windows source code online… Is that also freeware for me to train an OS-building model on?

Hell yeah! Nothing good comes from their new model, nor the advertiser-friendly focus of SD3. They were good for pushing the open-source ecosystem forward, but clearly their Capitalist masters have come calling, and they’re enshittifying.

If my brother were still there, I’d say, “yes, please”.

Whales

Cleantech is a very dynamic sector, even if its triumphs are largely unheralded. There’s a quiet revolution underway in generation, storage and transmission of renewable power, and a complimentary revolution in power-consumption in vehicles and homes…

But cleantech is too important to leave to the incumbents, who are addicted to enshittification and planned obsolescence. These giant, financialized firms lack the discipline and culture to make products that have the features – and cost savings – to make them appealing to the very wide range of buyers who must transition as soon as possible, for the sake of the very planet.

The author focuses on the danger of startups dying out and therefore bricking your devices, but another major problem with startups is that they are VC-backed, and those VC investors are expecting the exact same unsustainable growth that the incumbent “market leaders” are chasing in their enshittification journeys. When the startups don’t die, they will also ‘have’ to enshittify, to satisfy investors.

It’s not enough for our policymakers to focus on financing and infrastructure barriers to cleantech adoption. We also need a policy-level response to enshittification.

Sadly, this is the impossible part. Policymakers (at least in the US) will never prioritize consumers over companies.

Honestly, the best we can ever hope for is a law mandating that it’s no longer illegal to modify your tech if the company who operates it dies, or shuts down the backend server infra, but this will be opposed by basically every company out there (including if not especially video game companies, who won’t want to potentially have to allow people to develop and operate private servers for defunct MMOs).

Yep, people sadly are bad at extrapolating how restrictions on something they dislike can be cross-applied to limit things they don’t dislike, by others.

People often decry accelerationism, but the reality is that the slow-boiled frog is the one that sits and dies. Chipping away at freedoms, consumer protections, product benefits, etc is all less likely to spark backlash than when they drop sharply in a short time.

That doesn’t mean you should help to make things worse, but it does mean that you may want to reconsider constantly mitigating every bad thing that others are doing, rather than letting them shoot themselves in the foot. When people are being hurt, help them. When people are being inconvenienced, let them get angry.

The EFF’s response is right on the money, as usual:

Communications platforms are not comparable to unsafe food, unsafe cars, or cigarettes, all of which are physical products—rather than communications platforms—that can cause physical injury. Government warnings on speech implicate our fundamental rights to speak, to receive information, and to think.

There is no scientific consensus that social media is harmful to children’s mental health. Social science shows that social media can help children overcome feelings of isolation and anxiety. This is particularly true for LBGTQ+ teens.

We agree that social media is not perfect, and can have negative impacts on some users, regardless of age. But if Congress is serious about protecting children online, it should enact policies that promote choice in the marketplace and digital literacy. Most importantly, we need comprehensive privacy laws that protect all internet users from predatory data gathering and sales that target us for advertising and abuse.

This warning label announcement just feeds into the right-wing “tech platforms bad, full of librul thought, must protect the kids by surveilling everyone and blocking the harmful (minority-focused) content” agenda.

Keep in mind that this is not happening in a vacuum; many states have already put in place age-verification for sites they deem ‘harmful’ (and California is considering one as well, so it’s not just braindead red states getting in on the surveillance action), and this directly makes the argument that social media spaces (and the speech on them) are harmful, and should be subject to government approval.

deleted by creator

They just need to gamify it. Have a “Verified Accurate Alt-Text Submissions” leaderboard or something.

Deez GNUs

You left out the ‘N’ and the ‘tscape Navigator’

Thing we’re unnecessarily shoehorning AI into #2985490385343: Charging a battery

Glimpse

“GNU Laughably-Insecure Manipulator Prohibit Sexy Energy”?

The EU has been good on privacy against other actors. The EU is very bad when it comes to personal privacy from its constituent governments.

Mini Cooper

Fuck.

Always a helpful reminder.

And we’re opposed to that as well.

Just hide the problem!