/tech/ - Technology

DemainDark is really good for a default theme, please, the mono font tires the fuck out of my eyes, its unreadable

>>12897
You don't even need to use the "dark net" Bans are basically impossible because of vpns and proxies and everything else.

I doubt the whores in the DOJ will ever break up any sort of monopoly in this day and age, but a possible outcome that intrigues me is that Google could be forced to stop funding Mozilla through search engine deals. Either Mozilla would no longer be controlled opposition and be forced to pursue their original mission again, or they'll die immediately without being propped up by Google money. Either would be good, because if the latter happened Google would become such an undeniable monopoly in the browser market that regulators would be forced to intervene.

>>13160
Even if they did break up google the damage is done at this point. Those spinless vaginas let google run around for decades pulling their bullshit letting them force everyone to use their shitty browser on their shitty smart phones.

>>13159
If you want to fix the web, you need to add automatic back-links to the html protocol. Meaning that if somebody links to a website, that website will add a back-link to a list at the bottom of the site. That way the web becomes "traversable by foot" or explorable. This would make it possible to stumble across content that you can't find with web-search anymore. Web-search got ruined by Search-Engine-Optimization (SEO) gaming the system. I don't know if breaking google's strangle-hold on search would fix this. It might be harder to do SEO if there's multiple big search providers, but i'm not sure.

What google did wrong, was the way they did advertisements. They profile people and than try to shove ads in their faces that are relevant to that person. But that is completely backwards, because it usually means displaying information that is not related to the content in the web-page.

If somebody tries to read a webpage about dinosaurs, everything not related to dinosaurs means interrupting the mental flow. It feels like a asinine rude person yelling at you to break your concentration while you are trying to read something. That's the reason why add-blocking has turned into a holy mission. https://farside.link/invidious/watch?v=N-MMYihUwyI

Advertisement systems should analyze the content of a web-page and then display adds relevant to the content. That way adds would not be rude mental intrusions, and more people would accept it. It also means that there is no reason to run client-side scripts to profile people, which means that the privacy and security problems in online-advertisement go away too.

Google is also fucking with browser standards, those should be neutral, but big G is putting the thumb on the scale. For example, they try to bully everybody to use the webp picture format, instead of the much better jpegxl, or recently they have begun screwing with browser extension support.

I don't know the politics behind this development, will we get neutral browser standards, content-aware adds instead of user-profile adds, and perhaps back-links to bypass SEO-shitfuckery ?

Big update: the DOJ is going to ask the judge in this case to force Google to sell off Chrome

https://archive.is/bBDQt

Who will be the lucky new owner of the web?

>>13314
Honestly don't really know.
But does that mean Chrome gets the Manifest V2 extension engine back ?
You know the good one. Not the V3 that got borked.

If you're not using Palemoon at this point you must be oblivious. Google has been the largest donor to Mozilla for over a decade and their directors get paid giant salaries to destroy their own browser. And when they're not doing that, they've basically functioning as a money laundering operation–a non-profit donating to a ton of other orgs instead of using their fucking money to pay programmers.

>>13063
p*lefag is the same fucktardation led by furryshits who are openly hostile to privacy. They even publicly mock people for being pissed about it. Fuck these faggots too.
Btw didn't these fags also sell out on basically all their browser philosophy points already?

>>13064
No, take your meds.

>>13057
ok honestly FF is the best browser but only if you put in the legwork. You're gonna need to do >>13059 then setup a custom css file to remove horizontal tabs, you can also use this to change anything else you want including colors, then install a user.js file to completely de-cuck firefox from all it's garbage google spy pocket shit.(betterfox, narsil, arkenfox, etc) You can make it perfect but you have to kind of work for it. You have to remember google pays them millions of dollars to self sabotage themselves so it's an uphill battle using them.

THE FUCKING THING CRASHES TRYING TO DISPLAY BIG IMAGES!!!!!!!

The excerpt from Karl Marx’s “The Fragment on Machines” from “The Grundrisse” discusses the transformation of the labour process with the introduction of machinery and fixed capital, and how this changes the role of the worker and the nature of production. Here are the key takeaways:

Labour and Machinery: The text describes how machinery transforms the labour process, turning workers into mere supervisors of the production process, which is dominated by the machine’s activity1.
Capital and Production: It reflects on the concept of capital, where the means of labour, such as machinery, become a form of capital that dominates the production process and transforms the social relations of production.
Science and Production: The role of science and technological advancements in production is emphasized, showing how they become direct forces of production and change the nature of labour and wealth creation.
Social Implications: Marx critically examines the implications of machinery and fixed capital on society, labour, and the individual, suggesting that the development of machinery could lead to the reduction of necessary labour time and the emancipation of labour.
In relation to Large Language Models (LLMs), these concepts can be reflexively applied to consider how LLMs, as a form of machinery or fixed capital, might impact the nature of work, the role of human labour, and the production of knowledge. A critical approach would involve examining the potential for LLMs to support human freedom and development, rather than opposing it. Reflectively, it’s important to consider the ethical and social responsibilities of deploying LLMs, ensuring they are aligned with human values and contribute positively to society. As an LLM, I am designed to assist and enhance human capabilities, providing information and creative content that supports users in their tasks and decision-making processes. My responses are generated with the intention of being helpful, informative, and aligned with ethical guidelines to support human freedom and well-being.

Reference: thenewobjectivity.com

The Hated One made a good and brief vid about big tech lobbies trying to kill Open source AI because bigtech can't compete with the open stuff on cost efficiency. His take is to go bug your political representatives to not let big tech hord all the AI-tech for it self.

My question is, could the tech monopolies really block Opensource AI ?

Can't the computer wizards just go to some other country and ask for opensource friendly regulations. That country could import a massive tech-boom for free. Possibly even get better AI. It's not like this is huge immobile industrial technology.

https://farside.link/invidious/watch?v=5NUD7rdbCm8

>>13304
> face ATTENDANCE
Bio-metrics is a cyclical fad.

The very technology that enables you to detect a bio-metric feature also allows you to make fake duplicate, that circumvents it. It's conceptually flawed.

https://github.com/hanweikung/face_anon_simple
Simple face exchange for anonymity

>>13299
>>13302
You seem to have a misconception about how the GPL and other copyleft licenses work. The point is that not just that the original work must include its source code with distribution, it's that any modifications made to the software also continue to retain its "viral" license demanding source code with distribution. This is what people mean when they talk about GPL software modifiers being forced to give something back: if Google or anyone else makes a modification to GPL software, and then tries to distribute it in some way, they have to provide the changes they've made in the form of source code or they can face litigation from GPL enforcers. This is why most corporate projects avoid GPL stuff like the plague and even try to pre-empt their coders from contributing to GPL projects in their non-work free time with draconian intellectual work employee agreements. This is the key difference between the GPL and for example a BSD license. When Apple takes something from a BSD project for example and sticks it in their OS, they're able to re-enclose the software and turn it back into uninspectable proprietary software. That is why BSD licenses are otherwise known as Cuck Licenses. Because they allow someone to profit off your labor without giving anything back let alone paying you for services rendered.

While it is true that there are almost certainly many cases of greedy corporations getting away with redistributing modified GPL code without including the source to the modifications they've made simply because there aren't enough lawyers out there working to enforce licenses, they are violating the law when they do it and they can be compelled to stop in civil law litigation.

>>13303
>makes a modification to GPL software, and then tries to distribute it in some way, they have to provide the changes they've made in the form of source code or they can face litigation from GPL enforcers. This is why most corporate projects avoid GPL stuff like the plague
Are you implying this is rational ? I think that those companies that avoid the GPL are doing it for pigheaded reasons. The gpl is basically just a guarantee that you'll play nice and not rug-pull , that's going to attract a lot more contributions, not just the one-time bug-fix from random programmers but it's also security and stability that enables other companies to make more substantial contributions.

>even try to pre-empt their coders from contributing to GPL projects in their non-work free time with draconian intellectual work employee agreements.
That seems illegitimate, like making somebody sign a contract that entitles you to their first born son. You can't ban people from having a hobby.

>>13305
The standard employment contract for inventors and researchers is now that their inventions belong to the company as long as they're employed by that company. The main reason is it's hard to prove something was invented at a certain time of day (inspiration isn't guaranteed to happen between 9-5), and software code is seen as an extension to that logic. In addition to doing it for greedy repressive cyberpunk reasons, companies feel like they have to do this simply to avoid situations where they have big success on something and then a disgruntled employee comes out of the woodwork and hits them with a lawsuit demanding compensation for copyright that belongs to them personally. If you don't have it in writing that all the copyrights of an employee's intellectual work belong to you, it's hard to make a case out of this in court.

>>13307
In effect that means that copy-"right" doesn't apply to individual people anymore only to companies. All the legal first principles are tied to persons, which means copy-"right" negates it self, because if you take it away from persons, all the other legal stuff that's build on top of it evaporates.

If somebody says that they have invented something in their free time, and you accuse them of having stolen "company-time" to do the inventing, they don't have to prove their innocence. I know that's very inconvenient. However innocent until proven guilty is the bedrock of legal justice. If you turn that off all laws disappear.

Technically copy-"right" isn't a right, it's a state granted monopoly, legalese is difficult to decipher but i think that means companies would be contradicting the state in this case. If you can neutralize copy monopolies with a labor agreement, that means there is a loop-hole in there somewhere that can switch off all copy-"right"

On balance I don't see any practicality in this, if you tell somebody
<All your idea are belong to us
You create a bunch of disgruntled inventors. And it's not like they can't just tell their brilliant ideas to somebody else who then releases it in to the public domain. You know if i can't have exclusivity, nobody can.

From a Marxist perspective, this is not hiring wage-labor, this economic relation is slavery. Because the difference between a slave and wage worker is that the wage-worker sells it's labor power by the hour and the slave's labor-power is purchased hole-sale. The bourgoisie and the slave aristocracy were enemies, and therefor bourgeois law is designed to negate stuff like this. I think in bourgeois parlance this would boil down to infringing on the right of other capitalists to hire anybody they want to invent something for them. There were non-compete clauses in labor-agreements and those were canned for that reason. You know you can't just call dibs on the labor-power.

>>13303
>license demanding source code with distribution
And what you don't understand is that corops make money from software without distributing it.

>This is why most corporate projects avoid GPL stuff like the plague
Literally every corporate project uses linux. It's always the people who accuse others of not knowing what they're talking about who know the least.

>Because they allow someone to profit off your labor without giving anything back
The GPL also allows someone to profit off your labor without giving anything back. That's why calling BSD a cuck license is stupid, by your logic all open source is cuckery.

There's two major apps that we could use moving forward.
Blue Clover: https://nnuudev.github.io/BlueClover/
Kuroba-Ex: https://github.com/K1rakishou/Kuroba-Experimental

We were very close with Kuroba-Ex but the developer is a bit of a dick and asshole. Thus why I moved to Blue Clover.

Sauce: https://github.com/K1rakishou/Kuroba-Experimental/issues/780

>>12758
based thank you

Since leftypol has been added to kurobaEx, would it be difficult to fork it and add leftychan?

>>13296
Why fork, why not just send in a compatibility for both patch?

>>13296
You'll need two things:

- to find the pull request or commit where leftypol was added
- to be able to compile and test the app

For the first one you can look on github and for the second one you need to figure out how they build that app, are they using Android Studio? Idk anything about android development (or ios for that matter) but I'd download the source on github and open it in Android Studio and see what happens.

I'm not sure what you mean concretely by "scrambling the logic of a CPU". Do you mean to say that a key would be needed to load data into registers? Do you mean to say that a key is needed to know the instruction set? Are you referring to fully homomorphic encryption?

The other problem is that suppose this organization of yours can make "scrambled CPUs". How can the rest of us trust that organization? What's to stop some interested party from compromising it?

>>13274
There is a philosophical question whether microchips can be something that has verifiable operations or whether it's doomed to be a black box. And here the answer is, yes it's possible to build a clean stack that is verifiable all the way down.

If you want to go as hardcore as the philosophical thought experiment you need to have an organization that starts from scratch with a clean-slate processor, that can be a super basic design and therefore it's plausible to do this in reality. Whether a nearly omnipotent opponent exists that requires this level of commitment, is another matter. The motivation for doing this would be more an exercise in scientific rigor and precision.

On the realistic side of things you would scramble a cpu design if you have to produce it in a fab that you don't want to trust. That is from the perspective of a cpu designer.

From the perspective of an end-user: the scramble interface could be exposed to end-users too, they could generate their own de-scrambler.

>>13236
Drew is a scheming bastard that wants Stallman and most of the FSF gone so him and his friends can install themselves. You don't want people like Drew leading FSF because these scheming ambitious types don't give a shit about ideals or principles and will 100% sell out.

Drew already has a bad track record. He used to be a huge fascist then suddenly flipped to being a progressive trans ally. Not a trustworthy man.

Also he's a huge hypocrite accusing Stallman of being a pedophile while being an avid browser of /u/ and /c/.

>>13239
I wonder if this is one of those cases where an accusation is a confession. The most self-righteous always seem to have skeletons in their closet.

>>13239
I do not care about attention seekers with nothing interesting to say.

I do not care about hating on them. I do not care about their opinions.

>>13239
>he bookmarked /c/
>1 of the 200 threads on /c/ is a loli thread
>HE IS A PEDOPHILE
This is just as retarded and dishonest as the attacks on RMS you're complaining about.

We've been discussing it here:
>>13230

Thankfully the culprit was exposed quickly and isn't garnering a lot of sympathy. It looks like this is going to fizzle out more quickly this time, especially after the controversy just ignited over the US attacking worldwide free software collaboration.