You mean the thing any credit card issuer does anyway?

Alright, good to know.

For generic contactless payments at shops? Or some closed system that only works with other PayPal users?

Until earlier this year, I could make NFC payments with the app of my credit card company. AFAIK contactless payments on Android were never locked to Google Pay/Wallet. But I have no idea why there’s no competition in this space. I’d expect e.g. PayPal to have something, but if they do I never heard of it - and I did look once, briefly.

Well, if it’s been running for a long time, it’s up to some random point in pi and we missed the start. But we can still try to interpret the signal as digits, and check if this sequence appears anywhere in pi… Well what do you know, it does!

(disclaimer: it has never been proven that π has this property, but it is suspected)

If someone shared ROMs 20 years ago and stopped, Nintendo wouldn’t be able to do anything about it today. The statute of limitations does apply.

But if someone started sharing ROMs 20 years ago, and continued doing it every day until today, then that means they shared ROMs yesterday. The “crime” still happened yesterday.

Edit: but they care a lot more about preventing it from happening tomorrow.

I don’t think that’s a good argument. In a more general case, if you didn’t pursue your rights 10 years ago that doesn’t mean you can’t get your shit together and do it today. Maybe you’ve lost some of what you deserved but you still should get future benefits.

As for statue of limitations, if it keeps happening today then it doesn’t matter when it started. They could only talk about things that happened in the past year - it’s still being hosted and shared.

To be clear, I’m not taking Nintendo’s side, all efforts to preserve these games are amazing and I love to see everyone keep it up :)

Also feel free to cross-post this to the other community, or anywhere else.

We’ll see if my efforts fare any better.

I’ll try to add that in. It’s actually a fairly old story (in AI timescale) but you’re right, it’s worth mentioning.

Reposted because someone else’s post was removed after I took issue with its AI-generated summary. If you’re reading this, I didn’t mean for this to happen, I hope you’re not too angry. I actually would have preferred if you just edited your summary to correct it. And FWIW, I upvoted your post.

Do you watch every video available? I certainly can’t. So I make use of teasers and descriptions. That’s what they’re there and useful for.

Sure, me too, but when you literally say “Instant disqualification for me” that’s an insane reaction. You should know when reading a summary that it’s not a perfect representation of the source. Even human-written summaries or articles very often misunderstand or misrepresent their sources, many times stating the exact opposite of the source because of it. This obviously happens with AI summaries as well. The “instant disqualification” is what you can’t excuse.

well the recap is wrong :(

Reasoning and “thinking” can arise as emergent properties of this system. Not everything the model says is backed up by direct data. As you surely know, you’ve heard of AI hallucinations.

I believe the researchers in that experiment allowed the model to write out its thoughts to a separate place where only they could read them.

By god, watch the video and not the crappy AI-generated summary. This man is one of the best AI safety explainers in the world. You don’t have to agree with everything he says, but I think you’ll agree with the vast majority of it.

Watch the actual video before your instant qualification? That summary seems AI-generated to me and isn’t even close to faithful to the video

Where did he claim that it would make it less likely to manipulate? Can you give me a timestamp?

Did you entirely rewrite the application and then release the update with the update log: “* Stability improvements related to message sending.” ???

Edit: to cancel out the negative sentiment, good job. I personally don’t really interact with the app enough to notice that it’s changed, but if it needed to be done and you did it right, I commend you! Just seems a bit weird that the “what’s new” message is so bland. Is it even for the most recent version? The release on GitHub has a completely different changelog.

it should be noted that on a home network tunnelvision is not a real risk, only on e.g. restaurants and stuff like that

I have no idea if they are assisting, it’s all baseless conjecture on my part! Sorry if that wasn’t clear, I thought it was

I think by client you mean the device and operating system, which is correct to my understanding, but it’s confusing because ‘client’ can also mean the VPN client software which is often supplied by the VPN provider, and that’s what I first think when you say client. So with that in mind it sounds like you’re saying “it’s not about the VPN but the VPN software” which obviously comes from the same provider.

I have not looked into it so you probably understand this more than I, but from the sound of it the VPN software can be built to detect, prevent or counteract the exploit even on affected systems? In which case, even though it’s an environment issue it can still be resolved by the VPN provider.