I wonder if there's a way to test this hypothesis.
Does content being freely reproducible with minor modification increase the demand for content creators since new content is more valuable than the existing that can be copied.
I'd guess that since AI can fair-useify a work faster than any human, that fair-use reviewers, compilers/collagers, re-imaginers, etc content creators will be devalued.
However, AIs are as yet unable to create work as innovative as humans. Therefore new work should be more valuable since now there is demand from people and AIs for their work.
I'm assuming that AI companies pay for the work that they use in some way. Hopefully the aggregation sites continue to compete for content creators.
+1 for trunk.
In comparison with Vite, webpack, etc it's not as mature. Fewer plugins and stuff, but for the use cases it supports it's great.
I use it to package a static Yew frontend and it works with minimal fuss and has hot-reload for dev too.
I'm curious about "static Yew frontend ". If your content is static, why bother with a React-like tool, let alone one that compiles to wasm? Or have I misunderstood the term used here?
Great example, thank you. I had indeed conflated "static" with "non-interactive," and I definitely see how Yew could be a great fit for this sort of content. I appreciate the clarification!
oh come on, if an extension comes with no source code it means it comes with a native binary (because otherwise it's JavaScript and there, are, no, good, JavaScript, obfuscation, in, this, world, period), and does it really matter if it has network access ??? it may as well just inject cryptominer to your ~/.bashrc.
could this impact the exemption from liability for user posted content?
"Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act protects social media platforms from liability for harmful content posted on their sites by users"
If the social media companies claim that their choice to show or not promote or censor user content is free speech, should that speech still be exempt as if they had no control over it?
>could this impact the exemption from liability for user posted content?
No, not in the slightest. Section 230 is completely orthogonal from the First Amendment. Section 230 deals with civil liability for speech that is NOT protected by the 1A and the practical effects of that as it intersects with the realities of the legal system. It has nothing to do with letting government put its thumb on the scale.
>If the social media companies claim that their choice to show or not promote or censor user content is free speech, should that speech still be exempt as if they had no control over it?
That's not what 230 is about, 230 is precisely about allowing imperfect control to be exercised. It is long, long established (rightly) that what someone allows or doesn't on their own private property and to be published under their own media is expressive, and thus protected by the 1A. If someone wishes to assert something falls outside of the 1A though (like defamation), litigating that can be expensive, as can liability if it was. There are two historic ways to handle that pre-CDA.
1. Pre-vetting (traditional publishing): With traditional media like a newspaper which published both 1st and 3rd party content (like letters to the editor), it was both necessary and practical to pre-vet everything published (and have contracts regarding liability, insurance etc). So they're responsible for what they publish, but can handle that. But that doesn't scale at all. Imagine if dang had to read every single post here on HN and evaluate whether it was legal before allowing it to go up, making edits if necessary.
2. Common carrier (classic example being carriers ala post office, UPS, or Fedex, electronic ones being ISPs): here an entity simply provides a service to anyone without any content discrimination at all beyond things like court order or provisions related to providing the service itself, like preventing anything that'd directly threaten, disrupt or damage the provider. So a mail carrier can prohibit hazardous substances requiring special handling they don't offer (or only offer with special services and costs for the equipment/training required), an ISP can deal with DoS, hack attempts and so on. But that means spam and stuff you don't want to see is passed along too.
Neither of these fit with what the people want from private forums of all flavors (from bbs to the newest social media) on the internet. It's desirable to have something that is fast and scales, where even an individual not well off person is able to have a blog and have a very low cost to run the underlying platform for that, and enable a comment section, or have a little phpBB forum or whatever else, and then let people discuss that. It's also desirable to allow there to be content discrimination (moderation, this forum is for talking about specific issues not spamming ads) that is imperfect and non-instant, without then making the hoster legally liable for anyone posting anything not protected by the 1A, and without requiring an enormously burdensome legal process for that. Section 230 was created directly as a result of Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy, where a court found that because Prodigy had exercised editorial discretion, they were then liable for all content carried. This would destroy much of the internet. Want to have a forum devoted to cats and rockets, and so you delete posts about fish and trains? Now if someone posted something defamatory you didn't notice or realize was, you're liable for it.
So Section 230 was created to specifically to enable people to moderate content done by others, without becoming liable as a traditional publisher even if they missed things or were slow (an inevitability). They're still liable for their own speech. They're also still protected by the 1A for their own speech. At no point was it OK, with or without 230, for the government (federal or state) to put its thumb on the scale.
Most of our site is built in react, and hosted on ec2. We use Amplify for the forms. It has a pretty nice UI, and automatically generates dynamo tables and graphQL apis for querying and modifying them. It also integrates with Cognito which is nice.
The best feature though is that you can import Figma components directly. I know Figma generates it's own code, but Amplify packages it up nicely so I can import it via cli.
I wouldn't use it for a personal project, but it is great for allowing non-programmers to contribute components. And the automatic updating dynamo tables is worth using the UI for input forms.
the bootloader installs the firmware. if you corrupt the bootloader, it can't install anything anymore. you'd need to physically access the chip to use an external flashing device.
Some devices have non-writable bootloaders. They have an internal fuse that blows after the first write, so the chip's bootloader is locked. That means you can always flash a new firmware, but you can't fix any bugs in the bootloader.
Or a JTAG interface that the chip has in silicon and recovery is always possible from bare-metal. Dunno if that’s technically in the MCU’s bootloader or if the boot loader comes after.
Still requires a truck roll but at least you don’t need a hot air workstation.
> Or a JTAG interface that the chip has in silicon and recovery is always possible from bare-metal. Dunno if that’s technically in the MCU’s bootloader or if the boot loader comes after.
If the vendor's actually trying to lock down the platform they'll usually burn the JTAG fuses as well. It's hit or miss though, I've definitely come across heavily locked down devices that still have JTAG/SWD enabled.
Edit: To your question, JTAG is usually physical silicon, not part of the bootloader.
> the bootloader installs the firmware. if you corrupt the bootloader, it can't install anything anymore.
That seems like awful design? Can't you have an alternate immutable bootloader that can only be enable with a physical switch? Or via some alternate port or something? That way they can update the live one while still having a fallback/downgrade path in case it has issues.
That's good idea I wish they would have such a "safety-switch".
However I assume that any malware doesn't want to be detected so I would have hard time knowing whether I should flip the switch or not, in a typical scenario.
That was likely the point that whoever did it was trying to make, that they were an extremely bad device.
1) The ISP exposed some form of external management they used to access them they shoudldn't have
2) The attacker overcame whatever security used on said management interface
3) Once in, the attacker could simply overwrite the first few sectors of the nand to make them unbootable without local hardware serial console.
4) There was no failsafe recovery mechanism it would seem
An actual "modem" would mostly likely prove volatile/immutable by nature, but anything with a "router" built into it is far more vulnerable that typically run for poorly secured tiny linux systems, and subject to Chinese enshittification.
Not sure where you saw an opening to insert religion into the discussion, but there are those out there who aren't happy to sit back in ignorant bliss and pretend some spiritual entity will just swoop in to clean up the mess we've made.
I for one am happy there are more people interested in finding solutions to problems than there are lazy thinkers who will resign themselves to believing problems just fix themselves without input.
using a systems language for a backend mainly gains throughput over python than latency. each request might not be faster but you can handle 100x more users.
I'd guess that since AI can fair-useify a work faster than any human, that fair-use reviewers, compilers/collagers, re-imaginers, etc content creators will be devalued.
However, AIs are as yet unable to create work as innovative as humans. Therefore new work should be more valuable since now there is demand from people and AIs for their work. I'm assuming that AI companies pay for the work that they use in some way. Hopefully the aggregation sites continue to compete for content creators.
reply