Jimmycrackcrack

joined 1 year ago
[–] Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 months ago

As part of just living in.... the world, I already kind of assumed it was possible for some parties, credit card companies in particular, to pry in to my financial activity and also interested governments to compel banks to hand over whatever they had, and/or possibly just hand over everything about everyone to government all the time automatically. This was bad enough, however, even I was surprised and shocked to learn how bad it was with my own bank when they sent me a letter gleefully telling me that as of the date of the letter they had now managed to sell my data to even more 3rd parties. I was not, up until that point aware that they were selling my data at all, and that 3rd parties (other than the credit card company) were getting access to it not just because of powers to compel, like people might expect of governments, but purely because the bank was literally handing it over to whoever was willing to pay for it, no consent on my part necessary. I don't know what changed that required them to apparently have to now disclose this to me, but I assume that they were forced, hence the letter. The sneaky motherfuckers didn't frame it that way though, not "due to recent legislation the bank is obliged to inform you blah blah blah", no just "good news removed, we were selling your data, we still are, but we used to too, and now we're selling it to more people, hope you like egregiously unethical behaviour because we put a travesty in to our travesty so you can experience a travesty while processing the first travesty".

[–] Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago

Arguing with people on lemmy, people are wrong and the internet and the world totally needs my opinions to correct them.

[–] Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 months ago

Aww I was just about gush about how awesome they've been all these years. Guess I haven't really kept up to date. I mean it doesn't sound like it's gone totally to shit, but just clearly embarking on a path straight in to the shit

[–] Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 months ago (4 children)

I'm sure to make their point the authors chose some of the more egregious examples as stills for this article but godamn that really does look like shit. What were they thinking? It doesn't even sound like a cost saving measure if the original negatives exist. The purported reasoning around it not being about the condition of the negatives but instead an opoortunity to improve on the original doesn't make sense because you'd at the very least want to start with the original negs before "improving" the film and this phrasing makes it sound like they didn't and considering the still in this article, it looks like they didn't either. The way they describe the use of the technology maybe could be a net positive at some point, but this sure doesn't seem to be an example of that. Did they just not have access to the negs or something? Was there some bizarre licensing arrangement that prevented them from doing this the traditional way? This looks so much more like an elaborate working around an obstacle rather than an even better than ideal value add kind of move. Like, if somehow all prints and copies of the film in existence disappeared except an old VHS this would be an admirable and impressive way to get to from that to a UHD release, but as a first choice option it seems like madness. It seems pointless to do this now until the tech is literally a superior result to a new remaster from the original film.

[–] Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 10 points 7 months ago

He was a buay man with all the salad and calendar making and had no time to just wait around for a kid to come out whenever they felt like it.

[–] Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Is any of that information centralised anywhere? I still have and love my old dumb TV, but I want to be prepared for when I am inevitably dragged in to the "smart" era.

[–] Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 9 points 7 months ago

Hopefully they won't start standardizing TV's that have to phone home periodically and if they are denied this for long enough, refuse to work until they've established a connection to their servers. I'm not aware of anything that does this but it's definitely what will start happening if enough people disable network connectivity to circumvent smart features. This wouldn't worry me too much since I'd likely want to use the device as just a display anyway and plug something useful in to the HDMI but if the whole machine is somehow tied up in these sophisticated operating systems, what if they just disable HDMI until they get their way?

[–] Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 months ago

Nah they really like it, it's making me feel like a weird uncaring sociopath that I'm just really not that interested in the multiple daily photos, but the rest of us around the person sharing can't seem to get enough of it. I don't know why I don't care so much, I've met the kid and they're nice enough, I hope I'm someone they'll be glad to have in their lives and form an affection for but you can't really convincingly fake intense interest and emotional investment and much as I'd like it to be, that just isn't my natural reaction. I like to think if I have ever have kids it'd be different otherwise the poor kid would have to deal with someone totally uninterested for the rest of their lives.

[–] Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago (3 children)

I'm still confused exactly what the circumstances would be where this worked as the attacker intended. Would simply having the infected liblzma version on the system create the vulnerability or does something have to happen to invoke it and then what? What's he chain of events that would have happened had this worked perfectly and gone undetected? I tried to read some of the more detailed analysis but the stuff went way over my head.

Also, what about Mac OS? Can the package create any vulnerability there if installed via homebrew as it's reported to have done in some cases? Or is that environment also not right for it to work?

[–] Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 50 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Well I mean what did you just read? He already said those are the facts bro.

[–] Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago

I believe while I was figuring this out I discovered one of rogue amoebas apps that I could use in conjunction with sound flower and I was nearly certain I had it, it was something to do with how Skype worked that sabotaged me, I couldn't believe how stubbornly persistent Skype was despite how hard I tried to workaround it. I believe I was trying to make a single virtual sound device that combined my mic output with the system Audio so I could choose that as my microphone in Skype but SOMEHOW it was always able to fuck me over don't remember how, only that I was extremely angry.

[–] Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I tried to set this up on a mac using soundflower so I could share my screen with an edit project with the director during lockdown and still chat to them at the same time. Didn't work for some frustrating reason relating to Skype.

view more: ‹ prev next ›