How long will it take them to ban communications ?
A big reason they are pushing this is Cyberbullying....yet a recent death in the news this week, the kid was literally bullied/sextorted via SMS....not social media.
Without banning SMS and possibly calls as well, it debunks this argument
That's the slippery slope fallacy. You assert that communications will be banned as a consequence of this, but provide no evidence that this will cause the banning of all communications.
The assertion is not that something will inevitably happen because of this other than the further normalization of government authority over individual autonomy. That is an inherent result of this, as well as the prohibition of sale of alcohol and drugs to kids. You can argue on and on whether or not these are good, righteous, moral laws, but you cannot deny the intrinsic fact that widespread acceptance and even support of widening the scope of government control normalizes government control
Government control is the only way to address corporate abuse, because they are the only body that have both enough power (to restrain corporations) and the possibility of being influenced by voters. Too much government control and you have a problem. Too little and you have no safeguard against bad actors.
Not sure who you have spoken to, but I don't know one single parent who wanted this. In fact most of them have said they will assist their kids to bypass it.
> How long will it take them to ban communications ?
Just ban Australia themselves.
> A big reason they are pushing this is Cyberbullying
Oh really now? It has been going on for so many years... A big reason they've been pushing this is it impacts their own pockets i.e. the traditional media companies.
Well I should have worded it "A big reason the say they are banning it is Cyberbullying" , I don't believe that at all, but you are 100% correct, they hate big tech as it always beats our corrupt, biased and inept traditional media.
Bullying is not new and was performed via sms before the internet. Social media however allows for easier targeting especially for bad actors that are not in the kid’s friend/acquaintance group.
I remember when a bully would have to go up to you themselves to mete out whatever harassment, and you could avoid a lot of it by just being aware and avoiding that particular person.
Juxtapose that with today, where any one bully can create dozens of accounts to bully in a swarm, and the bully has constant access to you from your own pocket. Also, a person in Minsk or Timbuktu or whatever couldn't just come up to your house in the middle of the night to harass you out of boredom.
This "we could do X before computers, why are we trying to ban X-with-computers now?" line of arguments is just intellectually lazy. If a bad behavior was well moderated in the past because it was labor or resource intensive, the sudden removal of those constraints is a material change that demands revisiting. Put another way, if a constraint stops working, we should change constraints, not just do the old constraint with a confused expression on our faces.
Kids know how to download or use free texting apps and sites, giving them access to potentially thousands of different numbers from which they can engage in harassment campaigns. In fact, it's an incredibly common tactic.
Similarly, someone from Minsk and Timbuktu can do the same thing, they have access to the same tools.
My point was not "oh, social media bullying is some kind of special case compared to other ways kids today bully their peers". My point was "modern bullying is different from historic bullying, and dismissing modern bullying as the same as historic bullying is intellectually lazy"
That is true and we have certainly seen our fair share of that.
Adults are however also better equipped to deal with that, especially if they have not been subjected to such abuse as children.
It is worth noting that online bullying is however not the most serious matter here, rather (in my mind at least) it is the systematic targeting of kids/teenagers to get inside their head and get them to perform violent acts against themselves or others around them.
This appears to be a slippery slope argument: if they ban specific algorithmic social media platforms that have a verified extremely negative effect on children, soon they'll ban all communications.
It could happen that they ban all communications, but if you think so, it needs its own argument; it can't hang off the social media ban. Otherwise it is like saying that if they ban children from drinking beer, soon they'll ban them from drinking liquids.
The criticism is not that it wont be watertight, its that it will be ineffective in achieving what they say the reasoning is.
1. Kids are already moving to platforms that are not included in the ban, groups of friends will choose their own apps to make their group home, including Russian and Chinese apps ( already happening now)
2. Some kids have found ways around the included platforms...not surprising
3. One of the reasons they are spruiking is to stop Cyberbullying. Its ironic then that a big problem in schools across the country is physical bullying in the school grounds, with the educational authorities doing nothing about it. I know this one to be fact and have multiple instances that I personally know of where it happens and no action is taken. Our Government doesnt want to know about this at all
4. The platforms that have been banned are mostly "Big Tech" something that our Government hates with a passion, while many others go untouched. Discord is not included nor Telegram (how are these not social media, they literally allow people to socialise). I feel this is more of a weakening jab at Big Tech by our government to "stick it to them"
5. Day 3 and its pretty ineffective so far. There are many under 16's still have accounts on the blocked socials, and within the Family circle the only one that has been banned is actually 17, having her Instagram blocked ??? so not an awesome start at all.
My thoughts on this is there is very few things that will stop a sufficiently motivated teenager. I Know this as I have these conversations alot with my kids. They will work around it or go to whatever is out of scope of the blocking.
The only thing the Australia Government is great at is political grandstanding, regardless of the party in power.
It actually was pixel art, hand ( or rather mouse) crafted by the artist using a real picture for reference. I remember reading an article way back when where they interviewed her about the artwork. Amazing artist who I think at the time worked for Electronic Arts, but was pretty prolific in the Amiga space back in the day.
Im guessing the author of this has somewhat of an issue with Steve Gibson and GRC, and has obviously spent some time mulling over how to write a very wordy and seemingly in-depth bashing of the their Spinrite software. However if you like myself have seen it work, and actually take a previously unusable hard drive to a usable state to allow a successful recovery of data, or in recent times, take an SSD with poor performing read and write speeds to a significant improvement after running Spinrite on the drive, you will be able to skip much of the diatribe in this post and actually see that it more of a character assassination on GRC and Gibson himself. Is the software 100% guaranteed to work, nope and I probably wouldn't recommend it for critical enterprise data recovery if you have the budget to spend on commercial recovery services, but as a low price maintenance tool it works well for many. The Author of this posts seems pretty knowledgeable, and probably has alot of offer, which is why its a pity his ego and spiteful nature seeps into his writing.
This article didn't read like character assassination to me, personally - most of the time spent on GRC/SpinRite (after the overall topic of disk recovery is introduced) seems to be either observations about Gibson's style with which I think many would agree - e.g.
"It doesn't help that Steve Gibson's writing is pervaded by a certain sort of... hucksterism. A sort of ceaseless self-promotion that internet users associate mostly with travel influencers selling courses about how to make money as a travel influencer."
Or substantive critical points about the software, e.g.:
"This gives the flavor of the central problem with SpinRite: it claims to perform sophisticated analysis at a very low level of the drive's operation, but it claims to do that with hard drives that intentionally abstract away all of their low level details."
And I think it's fair to ask someone who is selling a piece of software for $89 to provide some backing for their claims beyond ones that would only pertain to largely-obsolete hardware.
I think you are dead on. I recall -- perhaps incorrectly -- that Gibson has been just silly amounts of incorrect on some things, but SpinRite itself, I've never heard anything but "... and then everything worked like a minor miracle." And you're correct, Gibson has a certain, uh, Wolfram-y habit of selling himself whenever possible, which doesn't help matters, but I hope people can manage to separate the personality from the product.
Observations of Gibson's style are all negative, except at the very end, praising the user interface. But that last element read more like a quick self-cleaning ritual for the author of the piece, rather than effort to provide a balanced description.
Gibson's style may very well be overly self-congratulary and deserving criticism, and many could agree on that. But this piece still reads like inordinate amount of effort just to show somebody and their work in negative light, without actually checking their product and evaluating it rationally and equitably. Even if there are bad things to say about Mr. Gibson's style or his software, the software may still be working and useful, and no attempt at serious evaluation was made.
> And I think it's fair to ask someone who is selling a piece of software for $89 to provide some backing for their claims beyond ones that would only pertain to largely-obsolete hardware.
I agree it is fair to ask, and Mr. Gibson seems like a reasonable ,easy to talk person. Did you try? He has a podcast, Twitter and a newsgroup discussion forum.
Listen to the "Security Now" podcast. He explains how SpinRite works every 3rd or 4th episode, with testimonials on every show.
He seems open minded and mostly harmless, both in his tool (which I find works better than free alternatives), and in his armchair security analysis. Sometimes though he oddly contradicts his own best practices, like nearly blind faith in LastPass for years based on (IIRC) a white paper and the early execs being very chummy and accessible. Thankfully the audience calls out the questionable stuff.
The podcast is called “Security Now” but what it should be called is “privacy now” because Mr. Gibson fails to understand a lot of contemporary security problems yet is quite sure that Windows collecting telemetry is the most severe problem on the planet today.
unless you use his software to fix it, that is.
Every episode having a 15-minute commercial for spinrite (via testimonials which all sound like they were written by the exact same person) should be more than enough for anyone to start to question the guy.
I didn't listen to that show for a while now; but it seemed that it was the only show out there that explained in details computer security news. I remember him explaining the speculative execution exploits when they first appeared really well when they first appeared. Does the people I know who works on blue and red teams listen to him? No, they already know that stuff, and yeah he could be more up to date, but he does his researc, does his homework and is a great pedagogue.
If he has implemented mitigations for all of the applicable risks of the software he's using, how is that "not the behavior of a security expert".
To my mind, a security expert is someone who understands the functional details of specific vulnerabilities, and explains how to mitigate them, not someone who makes vague, cargo-culty judgments about entire applications or OSes.
He was browsing the web, that's pretty high risk. And sticking to reputable sites isn't enough when their ads could contain malware. While it sounds like he doesn't use XP anymore, (IIRC) he was using it for the Internet well beyond its EOL.
He also admitted to having trouble getting his dev environment working on newer OS's. My guess is he was rationalizing the choice to stick with XP to avoid the friction of upgrading development tools. Which is odd since he's not afraid to delay things for years and ultimately has upgraded his environments anyway.
Steve Gibsons was always a bit of a laggard in adopting things through. He was writing pages about how assembly languages create small programs in the late 90s when that advantage was no longer relevant, running a newsgroup server and hooking up a web UI as a web forum, and so on.
Considering final application size as well as CPU and RAM usage will always be important, whether people believe them to be or not.
I won’t ever go so far as to recommend that others write stuff in Assembly, but I’d love to be able to do that.
CPU and RAM will matter so long as users are billed by those metrics. More RAM will always be more expensive than less RAM, and faster CPUs will always be more expensive than slower CPUs. If you write software that is used as scale, I would consider it a moral failing if you do not consider how many resources your application uses at scale and you do not make some effort to increase the efficiency of your application in some way.
Accordingly, I have almost zero respect for JavaScript developers, especially server-side JavaScript developers. Server-side JavaScript developers know that JS is inefficient and they choose to use it, anyway. How much coal has been burned exclusively to allow JavaScript developers to run Node on the server, instead of some other, more efficient language? A LOT, I guarantee it.
Performance and efficiency matter a lot at scale. At the small scale, no user has ever complained that their application was too fast or that it didn’t use enough RAM.
When you invoke a Lambda trillions of times per year, every last byte of RAM and every millisecond of CPU time matters. My employer has a few Lambdas which are invoked tens of trillions of times per year, and we saved a lot of money moving from Python to compiled languages. We’d save a lot more if we knew how to write assembly.
> especially server-side JavaScript developers. Server-side JavaScript developers know that JS is inefficient and they choose to use it
I'm in no way a JS fan, but this take is wrong. The main reason JS is on the server side is because it makes the transition between server side and client side trivial. Not everyone runs SAAS with billions of requests every seconds.
In terms of not only money and time, but also resources and energy spent, this increase in software productivity it is worth it in most cases.
The advantage of writing code in assembly was relevant then, and remains relevant now.
Given the vast regressions in usability and compatibility of software generally that we've seen in the past 10-15 years, someone maintaining and extending the functionality of superior older technology is doing something unequivocally useful.
And yet AFAIK he seems to be doing fine.
If you run the same stuff, only allow and visit the same addresses, and disable ECMAScript and in addition to other mitigation measures such as 2FA then I don't really see the problem.
> That is not the behavior of a security expert.
Your image of "security experts" must come from movies. I know security experts IRL. Their security at home amounts to not use their work computer for personal stuff and 2FA.
You’ve never had an ad on a webpage serve you malware via a browser exploit that does not require JavaScript, I see. Nor ever used a compromised supply chain. You think that luck will hold out forever? It won’t.
Turing off JavaScript and using 2FA everywhere are good steps, but like using a firewall and saying “I have a firewall, I’m completely safe” is myopic, saying “disabling JavaScript and using 2FA make me secure” is just as myopic.
You must apply security fixes. Sticking to Windows XP because you prefer it over newer operating systems is absolutely foolish if you connect it to the Internet in any way.
If Steve Gibson were a security expert, Windows XP would simply not have been an option the instant it went out of support.
He has had some very fun episodes over the years. Blue pill back in the Vista days blew my mind.
Another episode: "Blue Keep", had me calling everyone I knew in charge of Windows Domains, with many thanks coming back my way because it was a pretty big deal to get patched on unsupported systems.
If you think of Steve Gibson as more of a technical minded journalist and less of a "security expert", then the show is very enjoyable. There's a lot less grave errors now than there used to be, his voice is pleasant and he usually covers relevant and interesting news.
There is in depth information on its workings, on the website itself, in the newsgroups and in the podcast. If the author of the article were to look it would remove any "magic" of its workings. The author apparently has an axe to grind, for whatever reason , having said that , it may be for a very good reason but for transparency sake this should be included in the article. Instead its just a weird ramble about what he thinks of other tools and that he thinks Spinrite is a "scam" without technically explaining why, boiling it down to essentially a technically worded opinion piece.
Which, while not directly dated in the content of the document, references a "screaming Pentium II 333 MHz", which would theoretically put it ~1998. Is the claim that operating at a "low level" on hard drives in 1998 is the same as in 2024?
the simplest explanation for what spinrite does that I have heard is that on spinning rust drives, it simply tries to access the same bad data over and over until it finally (sometimes) gets a result. which makes sense that it would work (sometimes) because hard drives that are going bad tend to do so intermittently.
This is more or less also what (GNU) ddrescue does[0]. It first tries to do a linear copy of the full disk, skipping any errors, then goes back and tries to re-read the error sectors until you either cancel or it succeeds. It also keeps track of everything it's doing so you can stop and start the process without it redoing work.
As someone that’s listened to Security Now on and off for 16 years, with some light memory jogging I’d probably find that I know far more about SpinRite than would ever be useful to me.
This is what I was about to say. I've used it some drives and it worked 4 out of 5 times for drives that I had given up all hopes for.
These hit piece articles are all the same: very well contrived phrases that stops short of making definitive statements and overly rely on the reader making assumptions as a mean to avoid libel lawsuits.
My issue with Steve Gibson is that he spews technobabble, exploiting the delta between "stuff people who work at drive manufacturers know" and "stuff computer users, even highly educated ones, know about how hard drives work", in order to sell what basically amounts to a commercial version of badblocks with a bunch of fancy graphical animations.
Spinrite kinda worked back in the days of MFM drives where they had to be low-level formatted with sector track information the controller then uses to figure out where the head is on the drive, and that sector information is refreshed during writes. But it was still quasi-snake oil, using a lot of mumbojumbo to say "I just note the original value of a sector, write it a zillion times, and then move to the next. This causes the MFM controller to refresh the sector tracks." Yes, those drives did benefit from low-level formats done in the condition the drive would be operated in - with that particular controller, at that temperature range.
He claimed that spinrite could detect not just whether a particular bit was a 0 or 1, but get the analog value directly from the drive by "bypassing" the BIOS to talk to the controller directly. And Spinrite used to have an ASCII "graph showing these supposed values.
Post MFM - IDE, SCSI, SATA, FC, etc - controllers are built-in to the drive, and low level formatting was handled by the drive's controller itself. The drive is sent a low-level format command. Gibson might have still had some claim to legitimacy left there.
But then...drives shifted to using servo tracks written at the factory. The drive itself is physically incapable of doing anything to those servo tracks, and if you degauss the drive, you permanently destroy the drive because the servo tracks are wiped. The drive certainly doesn't expose via its IDE/SATA/SCSI interface any of the super-duper-low-level stuff he continued to claim to be accessing.
He kept spewing the same nonsense...that his utility would boost the strength of the analog 'signal' on the drive by writing it a whole bunch.
People who worked at drive manufacturers tried to work with Gibson because they were under the impression that he simply hadn't kept up with changes in hard drive technology, when the reality was (probably) that his product was snake oil and he knew it, or he was deluding himself. Example: https://radsoft.net/news/roundups/grc/20060123,00.shtml
Any value Spinrite has is achieved via simply trying to read the same data over and over. If there's a failing block, the drive will remap it, and boom, your not-quite-fully-failed drive is "working" again. Huzzah! Except...you can do the exact same thing by simply running badblocks - free and open source - or if you're trying to recover data, use ddrescue or one of its variants, also all open source. It's basically a "dd" that doesn't give up - hoping that the drive might successfully read a particular area if you try enough. The better variants use a binary search to try and get every possible sector. I've used it, and it works well - I've had drives where I was able to get everything except well less than 1MB worth of data, if you gave it enough time to run.
These days he's even claiming that Spinrite can improve SSD performance by repeatedly reading/writing data, which is absurd. All that is happening is Spinrite is a)wearing out the flash and b)maybe influencing what drive sectors are migrated to the SSD's SLC cache (most drives use an area of flash configured as SLC as a cache for reads/writes because it's significantly faster and more wear tolerant than areas configured as MLC, TLD, or QLC.) As a flash cell's electrical charge is reduced with each read, flash controllers automatically refresh a flash cell when necessary when a sector is read.
So, your takedown is "it does things you can do with badblocks"? Not everybody wants to use command line application that can't interpret large integers properly, some people prefer nice user interface and active developer that can work with larger hard drives.
> he's even claiming that Spinrite can improve SSD performance by repeatedly reading/writing data, which is absurd.
Is it really so absurd if it works? Did you do some careful tests of Spinrite on SSDs and did you find it never improved their performance? You seem to be describing 1) your mental model of the SSD drive, and 2) your belief that this model prevents Spinrite from working as advertised. How it prevents that? If SSD firmware does relocate data to other cells when read problems are detected, or refresh the cell charge where the data is, why performance can't improve?
"I feel" are the first two words, therefore it is opinion article, the kind of opinion that does not stick to the facts, and rewards opinionated hivemind consent manufacturing. I stopped reading after those two words cuz it's dangerous signaling of ideologies in my nonfactual nonobjective opinion.
Granted, but to be fair, I feel like the whole piece is "I feel like spending inordinate amount of time to describe Mr. Gibson and his software in bad light", without an attempt at an equitable evaluation of the product itself.
I feel that jkhanlar's still going to read the rest of this comment where I call that behavior short sighted and stupid even though they said they wouldn't, because I also started my comment with "I feel". But the problem is, not only did they stop reading there, but they felt it necessary to inform the rest of us about it. Which only makes them look even more like an idiot. Thankfully, by applying their own logic to their post, and halting reading of their comment after the first two words, which are also "I feel", we can save ourselves the trouble. Unfortunately, we don't know to stop there unless we've read the comment, so we're stuck in a paradox.
You're criticizing a mode of behaviour (not reading the thing and commenting on it anyway) as stupid. Which I agree with.
Then you say the problem is they informed us about that stupid behaviour of theirs. I'm not so sure that is the problem here. Maybe it is their strange encrypted way to ask for discussion, or help. And we should explain that behaviour is bad and should evolve for better.
But then you're proposing we should adopt that behaviour to save us the trouble with them. Thus you're proposing using behaviour which you criticize on others, or in general, because it sounds clever/funny in the present case. But it isn't, because as you've realized, it does not work.
If you want to save people trouble from stupid posts, my advice is, explain why they are stupid, but do not propose using any stupid behaviour, including behaviours suggested in other posts, even if it looks like it could work towards the end goal. The reason is that end goal is not important enough, and suggesting people adopt stupid behaviour in one case to save trouble, is still stupid, and unfortunately, promotes use of that stupid behaviour in general.
Reading first two words isn't sufficient work to arrive at such conclusion. Thus you seem to have jumped to conclusion based on just two words, or more likely, you are showing off/asking for interaction with a seemingly cleverly constructed text that has all the negative attributes it criticizes in the other text.
I did not stop reading your comment, because I didn't think it is dangerous to do so, and I thought it was funny. I write here to you because I think now it is not that funny, and you should abandon this behaviour and change it for better. For example, before commenting on an article, I recommend you first read it all to understand what is it that the article says. You will then be in much better position to make a useful and funny comment here.
That was a trip down memory lane. I loved the Amiga, I owned 3 of them at one stage, but ended up moving on after the collapse of Commodore.
Still has a place in my nostalgic heart though
This is where I am headed this year too, in the bid to save money Ive got an agreement with the kids...1 video subscriber service only at a time, between Disney+, Netflix and Paramount+. We watch what we want to on one, then cancel and switch. Hoping I can stick to it to save some dollars. Netflix is just ridiculously expensive now
Looks like he is getting out before the Sh!t hits the fan. As soon as they begin stopping password sharing im out and know many others that will follow. Its surprising the amount of people are only hanging onto it because their family share passwords with them and they feel guilty if they cancel....that will all go away if they stop it , and so will many subscribers
>>Their initial response was not lazy. Yes it was, it didn't consider what could have been meant and instead of asking they presumed the worse and attacked. Yes the initial comment was short, but also a very valid question even if it was lazy as well. If one wants to critisise, it should not be done by doing the same as what the criticism is about...in my opinion of course
They didn't presume the worst. They called it a bad comment because it's a fast dismissal that also basically forces you to presume to get any meaning from it. The two words reference a handful of arguments, specify none, and don't make a case for anything.
Not wanting to play "guess the deeper argument" is not laziness. And they wrote a perfectly reasonable length response to get across their entire point, which is also not lazy.
Well while I see your eagerness to defend the definition of human, it may for futures sake be a very valid question. It may not be too far in the future here we will see brain enhancements, or maybe even ocular implants which a "human" will read with but extra processing takes place elsewhere by machines. What if its a blind human, using machine assisted reading, what if humans are reading and inputing data into the machine ? All these questions and more should be asked now....so we can plan for the future. Right now is a great example, we are beginning to see the explosion of AI creation, yet nothing to govern it. Dont be so quick to smack down questions until you consider the broader implications is all I am saying
> I see your eagerness to defend the definition of human
I am not eager to defend the definition of human. Your comment has interesting points that could start an interesting discussion in its own thread. I see you do have a separate comment thread about it. So that's all good and fair.
But in this comment thread, you are completely missing my point! The OP has a very specific question that many HN readers care about. The question is complex and there aren't any easy answers for the question. My point is that the OP does not deserve shallow dismissals. Heck, no post deserves shallow dismissals. If a post is so bad that it should not be on HN, flag it and move on!
So my point is not to defend any definition or any particular school of thought or any particular view of AI. My point is to defend the OP from shallow dismissals. I am seeing these shallow dismissals more and more often these days and it makes reading HN comments a chore sometimes.
Your first paragraph: This comment is such a shallow dismissal of a good post that brings up a genuine and legally complex question that many readers of HN care about.
My first thought when looking at this thread was: I wonder if someone will try to claim their robot is a man and that it has been created. What might that imply?
> My first thought when looking at this thread was: I wonder if someone will try to claim their robot is a man and that it has been created. What might that imply?
It implies that they are wrong, and raises no interesting legal or philosophical questions.
Come back in a couple decades and we can check if we're getting closer.
A tangent to pondering the sci-fi future isn't entirely unwarranted, but it should be presented as a hypothetical and not as if it's a practical barrier to OP's question. "What if some day an AI approaches being human?" or something.
On the other hand if the meaning was supposed to be about human assistance, it would help to specify that and also talk about what kind of assistance might present meaningful trouble.
Or maybe they meant something else too. Such a wide breadth of topics being gestured at with only two words is not a good way to get a point across.
I disagree. I think the brevity was warranted and beneficial to the message. I think it is easy to link the logic and thus contributing to the conversation in a meaningful way has a lower barrier for entry.
I don't think attacking people for asking questions is contributing anything at all however.
Your response to my immensely simplified question with "they are wrong" fails to acknowledge a potentially real problem. A problem where too late is immediately followed by a successful attempt.
I see a lot of this today, much more so on HN lately too. I see people failing to be creative and resorting to some kind of "pics or it didn't happen" stance.
The idea that an AI that might be pushed through a legal challenge related to the constitution isn't far fetched in the slightest. It is guaranteed to occur. Not preparing for it is expected and while I love the feeling I get every time I predict the obvious but I would rather it stop occurring. It's short lived and the consequences have been growing.
You think AI is 20 years off. I happen to know for a fact it is already here.
Out of the entire thread, it was the only question I found that was worth reading. Pity people had to go and take issue with it instead of engaging properly and as the guidelines suggest.
These topics don't get much time before whatever force is at play flags them out of view.
A big reason they are pushing this is Cyberbullying....yet a recent death in the news this week, the kid was literally bullied/sextorted via SMS....not social media.
Without banning SMS and possibly calls as well, it debunks this argument