hamsterkill

joined 2 years ago
[–] hamsterkill 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I expect the trusted authorities would be selected by the server where the user account resides. I.e. if a server's admin does not recognize a certain authority, it would not show their verifications to users logged in to their server.

It's possible that it could extend to user selections of trusted verifiers as well, but I think implementing that level of granularity would be more of pain than it's worth to Bluesky. Still, I could be surprised.

[–] hamsterkill 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Revolt relies on community self hosting last I looked at it, which means it would never be a "mass" solution.

Should Discord ever collapse (something I don't see in the near future), the free alternatives that I see benefitting would be XMPP and Matrix — though there's new contenders that could make name for themselves by then too.

[–] hamsterkill 7 points 6 days ago (3 children)

I think their plan is for it to be like how website cert verification works. You have a set of trusted authorities that issue certs (or in this case verifications) and that can revoke them if needed.

[–] hamsterkill 8 points 6 days ago (7 children)

Isn't owning the domain proof enough already?

It's open to abuse and exploitation the same way domains are in general. An enterprising faker could register a domain that looks legit, but isn't.

[–] hamsterkill 5 points 2 weeks ago

The issue is a TSMC-made chip ended up inside a Huawei processor. They're not allowed to make chips for Huawei or other US-sanctioned entities since they use US tech inside their foundries.

What happened here is that TSMC made chips for another Chinese company that gave them to Huawei (and is now on the sanctioned list as well as a result, but wasn't when TSMC made the chips). The problem for TSMC is if the US determines they should have reasonably known there was a risk the company they made the chips for would give them to Huawei.

[–] hamsterkill 2 points 2 weeks ago

How is the US gonna fine a company from Taiwan?

They use US tech in their foundries, and thus are subject to export controls to make sure sanctioned entities (like Huawei) don't benefit from it.

[–] hamsterkill 11 points 2 weeks ago

From the article, it sounds like TSMC's part in this was just negligence as Huawei used a front company to make the order for them — like a 14-year-old getting an adult to make a booze purchase. If they get fined, it seems unlikely it would be for the maximum amount.

[–] hamsterkill 64 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

Why do I get the feeling that the hot new thing for CEOs to do is ask AI whenever they need to make a decision. Would explain a lot.

[–] hamsterkill 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Why did I think that happened years ago?

[–] hamsterkill 7 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

Oracle has been the most involved player for TikTok up to this point. Trump has also floated the idea of being government-owned.

[–] hamsterkill 8 points 2 weeks ago

The market wasn't expecting the tariffs to be as insane as they were — which is why it crashed. They had been expecting 10% maximums, not minimums.

[–] hamsterkill 19 points 3 weeks ago

Thunderbird's corp (MZLA) does not get Google money so far as i'm aware. It is a different subsidiary corp from Firefox's Mozilla Corp.

 

Rant incoming:

This was spurred by having just read https://www.androidpolice.com/google-tv-streamer-questions-answered/ , particularly this bit:

When I asked directly, a Google representative told me they couldn't confirm which chipset powers the Google TV Streamer — essentially, Google declined to answer.

I've been noticing an increasing trend by device makers to not disclose the SoC their devices run on. I've been seeing it with e-readers, network routers, media streamers, etc.

It's incredibly frustrating to have devices actively exclude important information from their spec sheet and even dodge direct questions from tech news reporters. Reporters shouldn't have to theorize about what chip is in a released device. It's nuts.

If you're wondering why this infomation is important, it can be for several reasons. SoC vendor can have significant impact on the real world performance and security of a device. It also carries major implications for how open a device is as SoC vendors can have dramatically different open source support and firmware practices.

I've had to resort to inspecting the circuit board photos of FCC filings way too much lately to identify the processors being used in devices. And that's not a great workaroud in the first place as those photos are generally kept confidential by the FCC until months after the device releases (case in point the Google Streamer).

view more: next ›