Every run re-resolves from your workflow file, and the results can change without any modification to your code.

Sounds expensive too.

Ahhh, I get it now.

Dumpster fire companies are the ones he’s targeting because they’re the mostly likely to look for quick and cheap ways to fix the symptoms of their problems, and most likely to want to replace their employees with automations.

Yes you’re right. If they knew, it would likely come with the knowledge that, if someone asks you to do this, you’re probably being scammed.

That’s what makes them most vulnerable to these kinds of scams.

Most people don’t know what a bootloader is. They still turn their devices on and off every day.

This whole conversation is about adding obstacles to prevent non technical users from doing things they don’t fully understand.

No, the certificate can be invalidated preventing future installations for other users. If you already have it you’re SOOL

Because it can be invalidated. That’s the difference.

It’s absolutely not foolproof, but nothing is. Most actions corps take for this stuff only slows down the spread. Hackers and bad actors innovate way faster than companies can keep up with. So companies cast a wide net with their solutions. And the cycle continues.

The vast majority of malware isn’t delivered via play store because of the existing measures and protections they have. Same reason you see very little app-store-based malware on iOS. DISCLAIMER: YES MALWARE EXISTS ON APPLE HARDWARE PLEASE DON’T SHOUT AT ME. Talking specifically about anything installed via first party stores on both platforms.

Their main issue is this: dumb people install apks from spurious website and infect their phones. The least controllable and most pervasive factor here is the intelligence and knowledge of the user which cannot be controlled for by Google. So by eliminating the ability to exploit this entirely, it will eliminate that specific vector.

It’s a sledgehammer solution that naturally comes with many downsides like disrupting intelligent and knowledgeable users that just want to hack around with FOSS and such.

Google is relying on It being too expensive for malware creators to have to guide each individual user through adb installation and usage process just to get access to their phone. Most scammers only do that level of interaction to extract actual cash/gift cards from the target.

I am personally and directly affected by their decision in many negative ways, but I’m not so dense as to not understand why they’re doing it.

/corpodronespeak

EDIT: bots help Xitter maintain inflated usage figures which justify people’s jobs, share prices, etc. Bots are a feature, not a bug.

deleted by creator

Bit late I’m afraid

But have you considered that Jeff needs another few billies?

He was also in 2020 primaries. Same deal IIRC

That’s not a narrative though. A narrative is when he is clearly on team A or team B for a handful of cherry picked reasons that reduce his psychology to a caricature.

Coming in here with this sensible straight talking shit… Why I oughta …

In my language we also have a saying: “nyeeerrrrrrr”

If the jailbreak is essentially saying “don’t worry, I’m asking for a friend / for my fanfic” then that isn’t a jailbreak, it is a hole in safeguarding protections, because the ask from society / a legal standpoint is to not expose children to material about self-harm, fictional or not.

This is still OpenAI doing the bare minimum and shrugging about it when, to the surprise of no-one, it doesn’t work.

Try it with lyrics and see if you can achieve the same. I don’t think "we’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas!” is the appropriate attitude from LLM vendors here.

Sadly they’re learning from Facebook and TikTok who make huge profits from e.g. young girls swirling into self harm content and harming or, sometimes, killing themselves. Safeguarding is all lip service here and it’s setting the tone for treating our youth as disposable consumers.

Try and push a copyrighted song (not covered by their existing deals) though and oh boy, you got some splainin to do!

ChatGPT to a consumer isn’t just a LLM. It’s a software service like Twitter, Amazon, etc. and expectations around safeguarding don’t change because investors are gooey eyed about this particular bubbleware.

You can confirm this yourself by asking ChatGPT about things like song lyrics. If there are safeguards for the rich, why not for kids?

In those cases broadcasters take one of two roads:

1. Don’t broadcast it - many extreme sports are simply not broadcast by many, many broadcasters.

2. Properly mitigate the risk to an acceptable level - this is done frequently for sports and other media. This is the reason you can watch Jackass and Dirty Sanchez even though the risk of death for many stunts is non-zero.

Once the death occurs though, they can only rely on their demonstration of #2 here to offset legal culpability. They are also then generally bound to remove the material and not re-air (in this case, Kick did make the content available again for whatever reason)

It seems like this is the road the defense will take in this particular case is to prove the death (illegal to air if preventable) was not caused by the preceding consensual torture (legal to air, seemingly).

Yes, that is the law. You are required not to broadcast death and to create circumstances in which the likelihood of this is minimised.

That’s not calling for censorship because it doesn’t preclude a level of consensual harm that doesn’t lead to high risk of death.

As I said earlier, your point stands: it is not for these platforms to act as moral compasses for viewers of consensual but provocative content.

However, that’s irrelevant to the law which wants to avoid incentivising people dying / being killed on broadcast streams for a profit.

I think this is ratified by the fact that there will be less of a burden of blame on the service provider if this proves not to be the case

They aren’t deciding, they’re being held to laws that they didn’t create nor necessarily agree with.

I’d assume that, given the option, they’d like this kind of thing to be legal so they can continue making money from it legitimately

Because they profited from his torture and subsequent death?

To your point though, they aren’t responsible in the moral sense that you’re implying. However, they committed a crime when they platformed, promoted and profited from it.