People will still fall for it by treating it like a demonstration of what Elon wants to make, and just an early prototype. The abilities these “robots” displayed are on par with technology that has been available for over 20 years. They don’t realize the parts missing, filled in by human intervention, are the most difficult parts to create and literally cannot be done without a major, generational breakthrough in AI.
Yeah, it was a guy they had come out on stage and do a dance in a morph suit and a helmet.
They don’t. They are not competitors. This is not a product that exists as a real purchasable item. Those little robot dog toys are closer to BD than what Elon has done here.
deleted by creator
“()()” is an ambigram, which wikipedia describes as “visual palindromes”, for whatever that’s worth.
The only thing that has successfully managed to thwart the FBI in their attempts to break into a phone was Apple’s hardware based encryption. To such an extent that they took legal and legislative actions to try and circumvent it. The specifics of how the encryption works is irrelevant to this argument, and you are more than welcome to consider that point conceded.
I’m not claiming iPhones are superior. I don’t care about dumb OS wars, just don’t put things on your phone expecting that they can’t be retrieved. That’s the only point I’m trying to make here.
And the keys absolutely would give them access since those keys are used to sign Apple software which runs with enough privileges to access the encryption keys stored in the “Secure Enclave”. Anything you entrust to a company’s software is only as secure as the company wants to make it, and the only company to publicly resist granting that acces is Apple (so far)
The Secure Enclave is a component on Apple system on chip (SoC) that is included on all recent iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, Apple TV and HomePod devices, and on a Mac with Apple silicon as well as those with the Apple T2 Security Chip. The Secure Enclave itself follows the same principle of design as the SoC does, containing its own discrete boot ROM and AES engine. The Secure Enclave also provides the foundation for the secure generation and storage of the keys necessary for encrypting data at rest, and it protects and evaluates the biometric data for Face ID and Touch ID.
https://support.apple.com/guide/security/hardware-security-overview-secf020d1074/web
The FBI wanted access to Apple’s encryption keys which they use to sign their software. They don’t have ‘your’ encryption keys, they have their own that the FBI wanted to use to bypass these features. They eventually dropped it because they found a zero day exploit which apple fixed in later versions. That is why the newer phones aren’t vulnerable (yet).
They’re exploiting vulnerabilities and back doors not brute forcing your passcode. The only way you’re keeping them out is with hardware encryption which the iPhone has and probably why it’s the only one not vulnerable. Hardware encryption also won’t matter if your vendor shares their keys with law enforcement. As far as I’m aware, Apple is the only one that’s gone to court and successfully defended their right to refuse access to encryption keys.
Don’t put anything incriminating on your phones.
a fine is a price.
It’s the ISP cutting the Ethernet by opposing net neutrality so they can force you to use their overpriced cable TV service. An inverted mockery of the traditional “cord cutting”, just as the image depicts.
The thing exact thing Squid Game is satirizing resembles Squid Game? I’m shocked.
how is it an experiment to restore things to the way they used to be? pretty sure we already know how it works out.
Another dev who forgot to .AddGameplay()
Non invasive BCI capable of the exact stuff neuralink has demonstrated has existed for a while and its probably a much more viable way to help the disabled than cramming chips into their head.
There certainly is a history of attacking Apple over their use of encryption. I wonder if they’re still mad they didn’t get that iPhone backdoor they wanted.
In fairness I may be mistaken. It seems ISPs were extended common carrier protections in relation to hosting Usenet and email and I conflated that with the protocols themselves. Either way it was a long time ago and I doubt they’d extend those protections to generic web platforms these days, but I’d sure like someone to set a precedent for it.
I don’t think comparing a federated message board to smuggling drugs is as fair a comparison as say email or Usenet, also federated services which have both been granted common carrier in the past, but go off I guess.
Legally I think they’d probably be exempted from liability as a common carrier, similar to how your email server isn’t going to get sued if you mail someone a link to piracy. I doubt they’re interested in testing that theory though.
Through various stages of my life I have used torrents, streaming, Usenet, Napster, limewire, aol/IRC chat rooms, discord, and even google searches. You must adapt to whatever works.