Thanks for doing this. I had basically the same experience with Lima. It is very nice but the defaults are not what I want, and I don't like having to wonder whether I turned off the stuff that I don't want enabled. Better that everything is disabled by default and I selectively turn things on (like networking) as I need them.
I'm gonna give shuru a try. My main concern is being based on Alpine (seemingly the only option?) I may not be able to easily pull in the dependencies for the projects I'm working on, but I'll see how it goes.
glad to hear it, that's exactly the thinking behind it. alpine is the only option right now yeah. what kind of dependencies are you running into issues with? would help me figure out what to prioritize next.
I haven't yet - just generally I have found it a bit of a hassle to figure out which packages to install whenever I use a different distro. I'll let you know how it goes!
I would want the equivalent of the trixie-slim Docker image (Debian 13, no documentation). It's ~46 Mb instead of ~4Mb as a Docker image, but gives a reasonably familiar interface.
(This is largely based on some odd experiences with Elixir on Alpine, which is where I am doing most of my work these days.)
> part of the polygraph test involves a blood pressure cuff which is put on EXTREMELY tight, far more so than any doctor or nurse would ever put it on. It is left on for the entire duration of the test (approximately 8 hours). My entire arm turned purple and i remember feeling tremors.
It's the CIA, manipulation is their speciality. MK-ULTRA didn't just study drugs and wacky pagan magic, they also studied more mundane methods of mind control which are undoubtedly real.
The CIA understands why beautiful young women with a multitude of better options will stay slavishy dedicated towards the one boyfriend who beats them, why people stay in cults with outrageous belief systems, and how fascist and communist dictatorships could motivate entire nations to commit genocide against their neighbors and fellow countrymen.
BTW the bit I described above about compelling you to tell them your embarrassing personal secrets so that they won't be used to blackmail you bears a striking resemblance to anonymously confessing your sins to a priest so that you will be forgiven in Christ's name.
I don’t know. I wouldn’t have thought of myself as proxying other people’s traffic by carrying my iPhone around. (For one thing, it’s my own phone that initiates all the activity- it monitors for Apple devices, the devices don’t reach out to my phone.) I can see how you could frame it that way, though. I just thought they might be referring to something else that I didn’t know about.
I remain skeptical. I can understand how one would might see it that way, but I think it’s stretching the word proxy too far.
Devices on Apple’s Find My aren’t broadcasting anything like packets that get forwarded to a destination of their choosing. I would think that would be a necessity to call it “proxying”.
They’re just broadcasting basic information about themselves into the void. The phones report back what they’ve picked up.
That doesn’t fit the definition to me.
I absolutely don’t mind the fact that my phone is doing that. The amount of data is ridiculously minuscule. And it’s sort of a tit for tat thing. Yeah my phone does it, but so does theirs. So just like I may be helping you locate your AirTag, you would be helping me locate mine. Or any other device I own that shows up on Find My.
It’s a very close to a classic public good, with the only restriction being that you own a relevant device.
You might consider why this article which has nothing to do with AI as you know it (except for the machine learning aspects of Gaussian splatting), and was produced by a huge team of vfx professionals, has made you think about AI democratising culture (despite the fact that music videos and films have been cheap to make for decades). Don’t just look for opportunities to discuss your favourite talking points.
The marketing works because online games get destroyed by cheats. Losing in online games can be full of “feel bad” moments, even without cheaters (network issues, cheesy tactics, balance issues). To think that your opponent won because they outright cheated just makes you wanna quit.
I’ve seen so many players saying “look you can own my entire pc just please eliminate the cheating.”
It would be great to see more of a web of trust thing instead of invasive anti cheat. That would make it harder for people to get into the games in the first place though so I don’t know if developers would really want to go that way.
To me the "web of trust" element frankly seems like the only viable solution. And in fact, its almost here already: https://playsafeid.com/
I predict that hacker news in particular will dislike using facial recognition technology to allow for permanent ban-hammers, but frankly this neatly solves 95% of the problem in a simple, intuitive way. Frankly, the approach has the capacity to revitalize entire genres, and theres lots of cool stuff you could potentially implement when you can guarantee that one account = one person.
The marketing works because of what I said: people are dumb.
Anyone that's not dumb will know (maybe after the heat of the moment) why they lost, but the vast majority of people will blame anything they can instead. Teammates, lag, the developers, etc. Cheating is merely one of these excuses.
> I’ve seen so many players saying “look you can own my entire pc just please eliminate the cheating.”
This entire idea is so dumb it makes my head hurt. You can't eliminate bad actors no matter how hard you try. It's impossible in the real world.
All these "if only we could prevent X with more surveillance/control" ideas go up in flames as soon as reality hits. Even if a single person bypasses it, we can question everything. Then all we're left with are these surveillance systems that are then converted into pure data exfiltration to sell it all to the highest bidder (assuming they weren't doing this already).
I applaud Valve for not going down the easy route of creating spyware and selling it as "protection".
Cheating is a very real problem in most competitive matchmade video games. The fact that you think that this is an "excuse" conclusively indicates that you don't actually have experience with them and that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
> This entire idea is so dumb it makes my head hurt. You can't eliminate bad actors no matter how hard you try. It's impossible in the real world. ... Even if a single person bypasses it, we can question everything.
This is clinically insane. 99.999% of people, including most of those two-sigma below the mean in terms of intelligence, correctly recognize how stupid of an argument this is, and that eliminating the majority of crime/cheating is absolutely a huge victory that is worth sacrificing for.
Think about that - some of the dumbest people in our society realize that the argument "if we can't stop every criminal/cheater, then there's no point in trying" is bad. What does that make you?
(it's also abundantly clear that you have zero experience in finance or security, either, because anyone competent in those fields can tell you exactly what it means to impose costs on an adversary and why your argument is factually incorrect)
