It’s been a while since I used Spotify since I use Apple now.
I remember being able to add my own music, but maybe it was just local to the computer.
Apple definitely lets you upload stuff to their servers though.
It’s been a while since I used Spotify since I use Apple now.
I remember being able to add my own music, but maybe it was just local to the computer.
Apple definitely lets you upload stuff to their servers though.
Apple and Spotify let you do that too.
Honestly a foldable smartphone should be 2 touchscreens with a hinge if there’s at all any risk of a bendy screen breaking more easily or otherwise being inferior to that.
Hmm maybe I’ll look into it again. The concern had something to do with having to spoof a serial number. I own Final Cut and would love to have the beefy GPU and CPU in my desktop accelerate it, but also am very afraid of losing my main account with that and a lot more. Already my current workflow is to render on my old MacBook as uncompressed, then transfer it to my desktop and use FFMPEG to compress. Better results and much faster than trying to have my MacBook do any sort of video compression.
Inkscape is for vector graphics, GIMP is for pixel graphics. You probably want to use a combination of both for many situations (design the logo in Inkscape, touch it up and scale it in GIMP).
From my experience, GIMP is close to par with Photoshop in terms of both features and user friendliness. Inkscape is unfortunately much harder to use than Illustrator.
I got macOS running in a VM on my Linux desktop. But then I didn’t want to connect my main iCloud account because I have heard they may ban you if you they detect you are doing stuff like this.
Without an iCloud account I can’t really do the stuff I actually would want to use macOS for, like using Apple’s movie editing software, or making iPhone apps with XCode. The default mail app is nicer than any alternative for Linux I’m aware of, at least.
It’s totally possible to make cool mobile apps, but most of the ones you see are just a big company porting their website.
All that being said, I do think there is a place for chat GPT in simple queries like asking about syntax for a language you don’t know. But take every answer it gives you with a grain of salt. And if you can find documentation I’d trust that a lot more.
We aren’t talking about current cameras. We are talking about the proposed plan to make cameras that do cryptographically sign the images they take.
Here’s the link from the start of the thread:
This system is specifically mentioned in the original post: https://www.seroundtable.com/google-search-image-labels-ai-edited-38082.html when they say “C2PA”.
It’s not that simple. It’s not just a “this is or isn’t AI” boolean in the metadata. Hash the image, then sign the hash with digital signature key. The signature will be invalid if the image has been tampered with, and you can’t make a new signature without the signing key.
Once the image is signed, you can’t tamper with it and get away with it.
The vulnerability is, how do you ensure an image isn’t faked before it gets to the signature part? On some level, I think this is a fundamentally unsolvable problem. But there may be ways to make it practically impossible to fake, at least for the average user without highly advanced resources.
Take a high-quality AI image, add some noise, blur, and compress it a few times.
Or, even better, print it and take a picture of the print out, making sure your photo of the photo is blurry enough to hide the details that would give it away.
Even if you assume the images you care about have this metadata, all it takes is a hacked camera (which could be as simple as carefully taking a photo of your AI-generated image) to fake authenticity.
And the vast majority of images you see online are heavily compressed so it’s not 6MB+ per image for the digitally signed raw images.
From my experience most sites that support YubiKey support multiple YubiKeys already
The attacker would need physical possession of the YubiKey, Security Key, or YubiHSM, knowledge of the accounts they want to target and specialized equipment to perform the necessary attack. Depending on the use case, the attacker may also require additional knowledge including username, PIN, account password, or authentication key.
Yeah that’s not a dealbreaker IMO
I genuinely love PlexAmp. I’m curious about the photos thing and might give it a try.
Sure but also I literally have a whole box of cables, and if/when I actually need a new cable I can buy the Amazon Basics $5 cable.
Alternatively, if you really care about having the Brand Name Cable, consider this a $20 price hike.
Seriously this is such a petty issue there are much bigger things to complain about.
When it does happen, hackers will be able to decrypt any vulnerably encrypted messages they capture now. We need to switch to post-quantum encryption well before quantum computers that can break encryption actually are built, such that any data they do actually decrypt is old enough it’s worthless.
But the real reason why Microsoft is doing this now is simply because the decision on which algorithms should be the first official standard for post-quantum encryption have just been finalized. Expect a lot of companies to be adding post-quantum encryption in the next couple years.
Sounds like you could do this to a person in a normal zoom call with no headset.
Also the internet is the primary attack vector for most devices. I don’t have to worry about someone hacking my devices that just do their job and don’t have internet connectivity.
That being said though, the internet-based devices in the article are simply becoming non-internet-based devices, so my suggestion is kinda a moot point.