sadly, no. Anticheat Systems are designed to be paranoid as fuck. So even some readout of the hardware used that WINE handles a tad differently than Windows might trip it.

That’s what happens around any toilet in a 2km radius when Taco Bell has a major sale.

How are you getting change?

What good is cash gonna do if the networked cash register doesn’t open anymore?

Many of the machines in question will have safe mode walled off for security reasons anyway.

I really have a hard time deciding if that is the scandal the article makes it out to be (although there is some backpedaling going on). The crucial point is: 8% of the decisions turn out to be wrong or misjudged. The article seems to want us to think that the use of the algorithm is to blame. Yet, is it? Is there evidence that a human would have judged those cases differently? Is there evidence that the algorithm does a worse job than humans? If not, then the article devolves onto blatant fear mongering and the message turns from “algorithm is to blame for deaths” into “algorithm unable to predict the future in 100% of cases”, which of course it can’t…

Especially with such careless failures. If some employee was tricked through a well-planned social engineering attack, or they used some mega obscure day0 vulnerability, I’d not be happy, but shit happens, I guess. But not sending my phone number when someone just posts some GET command to an API should be a no-brainer…

The absurd waste of resources VMs bring… LXC and Docker a godsend in that regard.

Are VMs really simpler? I’d say no.

This goes for most LLM things. The time it takes to get the word calculator to write a letter would have been easily used to just write the damn letter.

It’s always funny to see how inept and childish those companies seem when regulatory bodies don’t just stop pursuing them after their first haphazard attempt to circumvent the rules.

I’d rather troubleshoot for days than try to reboot or check cables.

“but… I explicitly described this in the frickin’ ‘Business Case’ you had me fill out a thousand times!”

Dmarc/dkim/SPF/certs. Fun times!

I got a mall server running, yet it’s almost more as an inbox.

Are you really this dense? The whole opt-in thing comes because Researchers found that Recall wasn’t encrypting shit and there was already a tool out to scrape this data automatically (Totalrecall). That was what I mentioned there. Come on, you must be trolling now. This is just laughable. But so you can’t be half-read my comments and make it fit your argument again, it’s even in the bloody article:

Microsoft’s changes to the way the database is stored and accessed come after cybersecurity expert Kevin Beaumont discovered that Microsoft’s AI-powered feature currently stores data in a database in plain text. That could have made it easy for malware authors to create tools that extract the database and its contents. Several tools have appeared in recent days, promising to exfiltrate Recall data.

So your reply is, “but other people don’t read…”? Yeah, I’m not “other people”, so stop making me a scapegoat for behavior you’ve seen elsewhere (and on which I agreed with you, btw).

Yet, you misunderstood my comment: Copilot is important. It not being encrypted is important (and hilariously naive). Where they put the turn on or off option in the setup menu ultimately is not. I wrote that pretty clearly. Didn’t you read my answer? That was the only information I could have gotten from the article I didn’t have already. Thing is: If I had read it (from a Screenshot I wouldn’t have seen anyway because I normally use reading mode, no less), I would still have commented on the dark patterns Microsoft uses to get you to send your “telemetry” to them.

I have since skipped through the article and literally the only thing in there I didn’t know were those stupid screenshots. So why the heck would I read the article when I had read others just like it?

You just saw something you’d been irritated about in other places and treated me (and others here) as if we were the offenders behind the things you saw as well, lashing out without provocation and felt justified because “it happens all the time”. While some of that’s correct, the people you went and “showed’em” aren’t the source of all evil, so skip the scapegoat bullshit and be civil towards people you’ve never talked to before, will ya?

So, are we done berating everybody passive-aggressively with just a sprinkle of condescension? Because maybe, just maybe, I was making a remark about the general practice of Microsoft to hide stuff behind nondescript bullshit names (especially in non-English versions where the English bullshit name gets translated literally most of the time, which yields even more nondescript results).

Maybe, just maybe, you chose the wrong comments to act up on “PeOpLe NoT rEaDiNg ThE aRtIcLe” when all that was posted about was inconsequential stuff about the precise clicks needed to turn a feature off that’s not even in the respective menus yet. So this is not someone talking bullshit because they misunderstood the headline about a murder case or something.

All that was said was about practices Microsoft has abused into oblivion: Hiding stuff behind obscure menus and hiding stuff behind obscure names. The comments made were a persiflage of exactly that.

Maybe, just maybe, the precise placement and wording in a menu that doesn’t even exist yet is a topic inconsequential enough that people will not read the tenth article about the general subject (Copilot becoming “opt-in”) to make sure they wouldn’t miss this super irrelevant point to the story. A point which you guessed from screenshots that haven’t reached production yet (even if they are likely to go into production as shown, it can still change), so your condescending attitude is based on wobbly grounds.

There are tons of articles where people post absolutely wrong and quite absurd stuff because they didn’t read the article. Some of them even matter (politics, world events). So let’s criticize people when they don’t read through actually important articles before posting, and agree that it’s okay to not read the exact article posted on unimportant sidenote stuff if one knows about the thing in general. Because if I’d be only allowed to comment on the article posted itself, I wouldn’t need Lemmy, I could just comment on the site that posted the article in the first place.

Besides: You did notice that you commented on two different people, yes? Because you sure sounded like you didn’t read the usernames before commenting and thought you always replied to the same guy.

And even if you find it, it will have an idiotic and obscure name, like “advanced history experience” or something absolutely nondescript

Why can’t you? I don’t see where the issue is. During password creation, you choose your organization and it’s done. If the entry already exists, edit the entry and choose the organization under “owner”. It’s four clicks max. Do you use this so differently than I do?

That’s what organizations are for in Bitwarden. They are groups you can give passwords to instead of your personal vault and people in said organizations can then see them just as their own passwords. That’s exactly what you described, no?