> Why do we ponder over sentences that rearrange words into appealing order,
> An ice cube melts with quiet discipline, surrendering its edges before its core, shaping the drink long before flavor has a chance to speak. Even in something so small, form decides outcome.
This doesn't sound good to me at all, it sounds like whoever wrote it is either an LLM, a lazy student padding the wordcount their essay, or thinks too highly of themselves.
If there's any reason that people think more of it, it's that the non-straightforward manner in which it's written forced us to process the words rather than filter them out as the bullshit they are.
> and disregard sentences as meaningless when they sound disorderly and bland?
> Climate change is killing people. I am upset when people die. I want polar bears to live longer.
They're just too short and do not contain any explanation/justification/making a case for the core claim.
It's not that suspicious- many molecules in nature are made from the same few precursors like cholesterol, amino acids, etc. and on top of that there's pressure for plants/fungi to evolve molecules similar to ones animals use in order to affect them.
We've essentially given up on pretending that corporations are also held accountable for their crimes in the recent years, and I think that's more worrying than anything.
The github repo includes (among other things) a script (relying on python-pptx) to output decomposed layer images into a pptx file “where you can edit and move these layers flexibly.” (I've never user Powerpoint for this, but maybe it is good enough for this and ubiquitous enough that this is sensible?)
I saw some people at a company called Pruna AI got it down to 8 seconds with Cloudflare/Replicate, but I don't know if it was on consumer hardware or an A100/H100/H200, and I don't know if the inference optimization is open-source yet.
> I know that Google hates to pay human beings, but this is an area that needs human eyes on code, not automated scans.
I think we need both human review and for somebody to create an antivirus engine for code that's on par with the heuristics of good AV programs.
You could probably do even better than that since you could actually execute the code, whole or piecewise, with debugging, tracing, coverage testing, fuzzing and so on.
Would be more interesting if you included some information about what it does, how, what the MAX-CUT is, a comparison to other solutions, etc. Literally all you put in the README is the sales pitch.
Seriously though, can anyone tell me why the fuck banking apps try so hard to find any possible excuse to not run on customised devices?
I just can't see any good reason for it but my banking app has invested more work into detecting any possible hint of rooting than into its UX. It's absurd.
> Seriously though, can anyone tell me why the fuck banking apps try so hard to find any possible excuse to not run on customised devices?
As an early cyanogen mod adopter I really don’t want to lose ability to side load etc. but to answer your question this is probably for the lowest common denominators safety.
Anecdotal example - a scammer tricked my parents into sideloading an apk which automatically forwarded all sms messages to the said scammer. This lead to 2FA code from bank go through and allowed them to perform some transactions.
There were many red flags during this ‘call from a bank’ and I’d say some blame lies on my parents here, I guess this is the only way to lock down bad actors? I am not entirely sure it is.
Banks have stupid rules probably made by people who don't understand the matter. A relative recently got victim to phishing and gave away some of his banking details (fake e-banking login screen on a website). After locking the account, the bank said it would only unlock it after the phone got wiped, which obviously doesn't add anything in this situation.
Another pet peeve is that they prevent screenshots simply because they can, and it feels safer. I know, 3rd-party apps which can do screenshots etc., but this is fighting the threat the wrong way. And yes, it's partially the fault of the platform, which could just allow user-initiated screenshots. Or at least make it configurable.
For example, my bank here in Hungary, Erste Bank has announced that the central bank requested that they stop allowing their android app to run on "modified" devices.
They even have a workaround: switch to SMS-based 2FA and use their website (which works well on any screen and has all the features of the app except 2FA)
Is this is something small regional banks in the US do? I'd actually be very interested to know about who is providing, and who is taking such coverage if this is being (re)insured. If you have any market data/news, I would love to know.
If you run a pentest, allowing rooted devices will almost certainly show up as a vulnerability. It'll be marked "low risk", but you'll also be told that you don't want to "accept risk" for too many "low risk" vulnerabilities.
So somebody then needs to say that this is not something they worry about rather than doing the easy thing and remediating it.
At most banks, the absolute control belongs to risk and regulation department. A bank must safeguard their license above all else, and it is very easy for them to loose it if the bank is found doing something it should not (though for the big ones, they sometimes operate in a gray zone, which means they manage to keep their licenses despite relatively steep fines). Even for the simplest ui/ux change, risk department has the final say.
Source: I’ve been working 15+ years in the banking industry.
Probably because it makes it easier to observe and/or intercept API calls and other data exchange between the client and the server. It's trivial to disable things like SSL cert pinning, etc. on rooted devices.
… and then the return argument is that those who actually want to do this nefariously are already going to be able to hide device modifications/rooting.
It's like an image, you want neither a single solid colour nor perfect noise, but something in-between with identifiable features, highs and lows. When it changes unexpectedly it should change into something new and exciting, not more noise.
> An ice cube melts with quiet discipline, surrendering its edges before its core, shaping the drink long before flavor has a chance to speak. Even in something so small, form decides outcome.
This doesn't sound good to me at all, it sounds like whoever wrote it is either an LLM, a lazy student padding the wordcount their essay, or thinks too highly of themselves.
If there's any reason that people think more of it, it's that the non-straightforward manner in which it's written forced us to process the words rather than filter them out as the bullshit they are.
> and disregard sentences as meaningless when they sound disorderly and bland?
> Climate change is killing people. I am upset when people die. I want polar bears to live longer.
They're just too short and do not contain any explanation/justification/making a case for the core claim.
reply