201–210 of 227 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I watched a teardown of it and the truly bizarre thing was that the build quality was actually amazing. Machined out of a huge block of aluminum, really big bearings, etc.
That was part of why it failed though. The over-engineering made it very hard to recover costs
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suggest researching how ZCash uses zero-knowledge proofs to allow paying money from your balance to another person's balance without any middleman like a bank being able to decrypt your transaction, while still allowing everyone to verify that important invariants are maintained, such as not allowing you to spend more money than you have. This is what it takes to make a financial transaction E2EE. I'm not saying th…
Doesn't the anonymous-ness of crypto/zcash make it impossible for the bank to handle fraud (reversing of charges and such)? My understanding is that banks, at least in the US, need to have fairly extensive knowledge relating to all transfers of money, both for fraud handling and for non-fraud (money laundering, etc). A transaction they can't know anything about other than "transfer X money to some recipient you can't…
That said, it might not be impossible to implement some enforcement of AML-like rules with zero-knowledge proofs. What's possible with advanced cryptography is not at all intuitive. But banks profit from their middleman position and surely wouldn't be interested in disintermediating themselves. Neither would crypto people be interested in adding AML. So I don't expect anyone to try. This fact still doesn't make existing middleman banks qualify as E2EE.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's pointed at the toilet bowl contents though it may catch some scrot in the edge of frame depending upon ambient temperatures. https://images.ctfassets.net/veq5rt4lbvkn/2bpiwr3gYoRPnXqB8e...
Can you send it in for servicing when the lens becomes obscured ?
Imagine the collective brainpower that could be used to help solve the world's ills, and instead decided, no, what we need is a camera pointed at your asshole which we feed into an AI-powered SaaS we can then sell to you for a subscription. This industry is finished.
It's pointed at the toilet bowl contents though it may catch some scrot in the edge of frame depending upon ambient temperatures. https://images.ctfassets.net/veq5rt4lbvkn/2bpiwr3gYoRPnXqB8e...
"[D]epending upon ambient tempertures and user age" is probably more accurate.
Imagine the collective brainpower that could be used to help solve the world's ills, and instead decided, no, what we need is a camera pointed at your asshole which we feed into an AI-powered SaaS we can then sell to you for a subscription. This industry is finished.
This is downstream from the notion that companies need to have infinite growth forever. Of course, that's not possible, so this is the end stages of that: wealth trickles up while the, well... you can guess what's trickling down.
Imagine the collective brainpower that could be used to help solve the world's ills, and instead decided, no, what we need is a camera pointed at your asshole which we feed into an AI-powered SaaS we can then sell to you for a subscription. This industry is finished.
They claim it only points about your doings, but even then...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't the anonymous-ness of crypto/zcash make it impossible for the bank to handle fraud (reversing of charges and such)? My understanding is that banks, at least in the US, need to have fairly extensive knowledge relating to all transfers of money, both for fraud handling and for non-fraud (money laundering, etc). A transaction they can't know anything about other than "transfer X money to some recipient you can't…
Yes, banks have a bunch of regulations which means they can't run an end-to-end encrypted payment service. That's an argument that their payment service is not end-to-end encrypted, not an argument that you can simply redefine the ends and say that it is.
> Honestly, I don't understand what argument is that you're not sending a message TO the bank, and they need to be able to read it in order to act on it, and they need to decrypt it to read it. The bank is the target of the message, they are one of the "ends" in E2EE.
That's the part that I'm confused on.
Holy crap. I remember a sign in our dorm bathroom that read, “toilet cam is for research purposes only”. It was a joke, but always got a nice reaction from new people in the building. But they actually sell this?! And want to charge me for it!? Holy crap!
https://shop.digitalcourage.de/digitalcourage-und-ccc-aufkle...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Users thinking e2ee is possible when you chat with an ai agent. It shouldn't be any harder than e2ee chatting with any other user. It's just instead of the other end chatting using a keyboard as an input they chat using a language model to type the messages. Of course like any other e2ee solution, the person you are talking to also has access to your messages as that's the whole point, being able to talk to them.
e2ee implies that there is a third party who can't read the messages. If you are chatting with an AI, who is the third party?
My ISP who delivers these chat messages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Users thinking e2ee is possible when you chat with an ai agent. It shouldn't be any harder than e2ee chatting with any other user. It's just instead of the other end chatting using a keyboard as an input they chat using a language model to type the messages. Of course like any other e2ee solution, the person you are talking to also has access to your messages as that's the whole point, being able to talk to them.
I do not think this matches anyones' mental model of what "end-to-end encrypted" for a conversation between me and what is ostensibly my own computer should look like. If you promise end-to-end encryption, and later it turns out your employees have been reading my chat transcripts...