Tetsuo

joined 1 year ago
[–] Tetsuo@jlai.lu 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Honestly, Apple was for years very anti-repair.

So the manuals are nice but that doesn't absolve them for the decades of products designed to be hard to repair on purpose.

I won't go full Rossmann but seriously Appol very bad when it comes to repairability and reliability. But they can release a few manuals and they are absolved for their bullshit?

It's a start but Apple still makes purposefully hard to repair products.

[–] Tetsuo@jlai.lu 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

the commercials that have already been paid to the company are still showing, so that ad revenue is still being capitalized.

That's not how it works though. You are not accounted for watching the ads over a pirate stream...

[–] Tetsuo@jlai.lu 0 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

Honestly, don't give them ideas...

If a business quite literally controls a country we are fucked.

[–] Tetsuo@jlai.lu 0 points 4 weeks ago

I stopped using Signal when they dropped SMS support.

It's a great project but with very bad leadership and strategy.

They definitely had the best shot to secure communications and wasted it.

[–] Tetsuo@jlai.lu 13 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Also people regularly spend more than they can afford.

When you think about it the fact that you can quite easily borrow money you clearly will not reimburse which is kind of an infinite money Glitch for capitalism.

[–] Tetsuo@jlai.lu 2 points 1 month ago

Thanks ! That's exactly how I think it could be implemented but that confirms that this is certainly not something you can find commonly where I live.

That confirms the fact that if you use the same wifi and everyone has entered the same encryption key then there is no real client isolation...

It's cool that wifi keeps evolving. It comes a long way from the WEP beginnings.

[–] Tetsuo@jlai.lu 5 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Do you have any documentation on how this work ? Is there a name to this special protocol? Is it a recent addition to the wifi standard ?

Again a wifi AP doesn't send data to a specific client. So how does an AP can enforce that one client can't read a frame for someone else that is properly authenticated? How would an AP prevent someone spoofing mac addresses from receiving that data ?

I'm really confused by this feature I never heard of even when I was playing with aircrack and so on. Yes sometimes your mac address can get filtered but even that is not really difficult to avoid.

Sorry I have so many questions but I honestly did quite some "tinkering" with wifi years ago and none of this sounds familiar.

[–] Tetsuo@jlai.lu 3 points 1 month ago (9 children)

I have no idea what this client separation is.

As far as I know there isn't really any client separation on wifi. It's a shared medium.

At least I don't see anything preventing you from reading someone else traffic. So anything unencrypted on a wifi is also accessible to any other clients.

I had tools more than 10 years ago that could automatically hijack session cookies on wifi for anybody connected and not using https.

[–] Tetsuo@jlai.lu 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Edit: I know, I shouldn't give a shit. But writing a fairly long comment to share my knowledge on this only to see it immediately downvoted without any explanation kind of sucks. So I'm removing this comment and will not interact here anymore.

[–] Tetsuo@jlai.lu 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

IMHO everyone is entirely missing the point pointing their finger at Boeing.

The main issue is the FAA and how it failed to control Boeing. It's obvious a business will try to sacrifice safety for money. But there should be check and balances. Someone making sure a business doesn't do that.

The FAA let Boeing supervise itself.

Just to be clear some of the higher up at Boeing are criminals but so is the cop that told him he could police himself.

[–] Tetsuo@jlai.lu 40 points 1 month ago
[–] Tetsuo@jlai.lu 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The problem was solved by Nvidia, then AMD made it cheap and accessible and not requiring a dedicated hardware module.

For years and years Nvidia increased artificially by up to 150 euros many Gsync screens and for no legitimate reason. Initially there was NO compatibility with free sync at all.

Nvidia wasn't kindly solving a gamers problem at least to after the first year of release of that tech. They were forcibly selling expensive hardware modules nobody needed or wanted. And long after freesync showed you could do it just as well without this expensive requirements.

This hardware module they insisted on selling wasn't solving a technical problem but a money one.

I don't even think anyone was ever able to differentiate between the different qualities of "sync techs".

view more: next ›