Same encryption key can create “alternative facts” - impossible to prove which conversation really happened

Can you elaborate on what this means?

They don’t even have to be visible to the user and bitwarden will fill them in as soon as the page loads.

I guess you didn’t read most of the comment.

Right, “maliciously sneak”, as in they’ve either gained access to make changes to the site ditectly, or they’ve found a way to inject their scripts to steal creds.

Someone manages to maliciously sneak username and password fields onto a site that store what is entered as soon as it’s typed. They don’t even have to be visible to the user and bitwarden will fill them in as soon as the page loads.

What you’re describing sounds pretty much exactly like how I use Proxmox at this point (everything in LXCs, most just running docker on Alpine) and I’ve been wanting to make the switch to Incus for a while. Did you migrate your LXCs over from Proxmox? I’m a little worried about how painful that process might be.

This is unhinged levels of virtue signalling. Just downvote or say you think the joke is distasteful.

He’s always been a deceitful and manipulative narcissist, even before being an industry plant anti-consumer shill.

Here’s a good one, the time he manipulated someone a decade younger than him for money and sex via furry roleplay while hiding the fact he was married: https://piratesoftware.sucks/

It does not mean that at all. Nothing about choosing to release a model for free or not has any bearing on whether or not the app will respect the privacy of its users.

OpenAI could feel like they’re making enough money off of their proprietary model that they don’t need to collect data (I’m not saying this is likely), while DeepSeek could have released the model for free hoping mass adoption leads to more app downloads and more data to harvest. I don’t assume either has good intentions.

You think them already invasively farming user data from tiktok somehow makes them less likely to do the same thing with another app, and not more likely?

If someone stole $1000 from you and then asked to borrow $20, would you give it to them? Surely they won’t steal that too, they already have $1000.

I have no idea what point you’re trying to make. That means they have good intentions with the data they’re collecting about the users of their mobile apps?

I run deepseek locally so obviously I appreciate that they made that decision, but let’s not pretend that something can’t be given away for free with bad intentions. People running LLMs locally are a drop in the bucket compared to people just downloading an app.

Checks out, if you’re a Gnome user you’re already used to being told how you should be doing things by them.

I’m not sure why you added a question mark at the end of your statement.

I was questioning whether or not you would see that as a benefit. Clearly you don’t.

Are you also against libraries letting people borrow books since those are also lost sales for the authors, or are you just a luddite?

Because books are used to train both commercial and open source language models?

Even being too lazy to open the weather app, there are so many better and free ways of receiving a message on your phone. This is profoundly stupid.

I agree, but they’ve also made deliberate moves to muddy the waters of open source and push the limits of what is acceptable under GPL, and I’m not going to shed any tears over their loss of potential corporate profit.

Dude you’re fighting a very uphill battle trying to make us feel bad for an IBM subsidiary.

This has no relevance to politics and I’m not attacking anything by saying forcing sign ups is a barrier to content or that you’re wrong about it having anything to do with bots, you dork.

No it isn’t, they are letting bots scrape the articles just like every other news site for that sweet, sweet SEO. Why do you think the archive.is link has the full article?

Still a wall between people clicking the link and the content.