Who’s being exploited? It’s not like the app hides its true nature until you pay. People are upset at the idea of paying it something they don’t want to but that’s a completely imaginary scenario, those who think it’s good will pay for it and those who don’t won’t. I don’t think that justifies calling the guy names and assuming how he must’ve become (or has always been) a bad person.

I’ve no idea what you mean by legitimacy of YouTube, but if you think things like this hurt it wouldn’t it help to not have a big outrage that makes it reach even more people? Let it have a quiet death and maybe the media will stop creating these weekly how-dare-you-make-a-bad-product dramas

I don’t understand why the internet is unable to say “I don’t like this app, so I won’t pay for it” rather than “I don’t like this app, so you’re a bad person”. Hundreds of people raging over and catastrophising something they never bought or even heard of until now.

Filters will not be going away altogether on Instagram. First-party filters created by Meta will continue to be available.

This isn’t out on windows neither. This article is a rewording of another article that seems to be a mix of data mining and speculation. So having the same information as everyone else, I don’t see any issue with commenting on it

It’s a button to manage your Microsoft account that you signed into windows with. It’s not shocking that it has an option to upgrade said account

Edit:

1. I don’t use windows, stop assuming things about me
2. Everything you don’t like or don’t use isn’t an ad. This is no different than Gmail and Google chrome having Google drive integration.
3. Microsoft has been forcing people to use online accounts for windows login, so it’s only natural for the account button to let you manage it as well.
4. This isn’t an endorsement or a value judgement.

That’s not an ad

Since the attack already involves someone with physical access they could hide a transmitter in the same room

Copied from another thread:

Fast transmissions are limited to a maximum range of 300 cm (10 ft), with the bit error rate being 2-4%. Medium-speed transmissions increase the distance to 450 cm (15 ft) for the same error rate. Finally, slow transmissions with nearly zero error rates can work reliably over distances of up to 7 meters (23 ft).

Fast = 1000bps, medium = 500bps, slow = 100bps.

I see, I thought routers knew not to do dhcp on the Wan port

Is there a limit to the number of devices allowed to connect that this rule is trying to enforce?

Either way, if the vr headset doesn’t need internet connection you could connect your computer to the internet wirelessly and to your own router via cable for vr.

I just saw you specified if it’s configured for pass through.

I didn’t, that’s just bad grammar. Edited the comment

I don’t know much about networking but that page seems to be about someone else setting up a dhcp server without the knowledge of the administrators or the users. In op’s case the concerns about mitm attacks don’t apply and the other concerns sound like problems that could arise in cases of misconfiguration or if the users aren’t aware they’re connected to a different network. I also couldn’t see anything about it affecting the main network’s performance

Why does the dhcp on the router affect the main network? I’d think if it has its own network the main network would only need to deal with the router, as opposed to all the devices connected to the router if it was passthrough?

This is one of the rare steam purchases I regret. Horror games are not for me

Guessing from how this change required 3+ implementations before it became official according to the gitlab page, maybe it’s a chicken and egg situation. Hdr is a lot of work so maybe people don’t want to implement an unfinalized version that might change

Wow the icon saga is finished!?

If anyone wants to throw away a couple hours, there was SO much discussion (and initially drama) over it: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland-protocols/-/merge_requests/269

It goes as low as 405mhz on Linux for me (4070ti)

What scenario are you talking about?? From the article:

NGate malware can relay NFC data from a victim’s card through a compromised device to an attacker’s smartphone, which is then able to emulate the card and withdraw money from an ATM.
…
Masquerading as a legitimate app for a target’s bank, NGate prompts the user to enter the banking client ID, date of birth, and the PIN code corresponding to the card. The app goes on to ask the user to turn on NFC and to scan the card.

Physical card is involved, mobile payments isn’t.

No? The nfc sensor is next to the credit card, which is why it’s able to communicate with it to relay it.

Why would it need to create fake events? How would that even help?

There is nothing being subverted, nfc has applications other than contactless payments that require it acting as the reader, which is why it’s supported. It would be better if it was behind an explicit permission (just like other sensors would) but limiting it to only responding to readers is like limiting Bluetooth to audio transmission.

The fact you can trick the NFC system on the phone into reacting to “phantom” payment events and intercept the resulting token sounds like a pretty big problem.

That’s not what’s happening though? It’s relaying a physical card’s nfc not tricking mobile contactless payments