Things Newly Enshittified

[Loki]

No.

Adding features which restrict what people can do with the product they have purchased.

It's not "innovation"

It's destrovation.

It's not smart. It's not cute.

Srop it.

[Irrev-Black]

AutoKaren?

https://bne.social/@elizabethtasker@mas ... 4761893161

elizabethtasker@mastodon.online
Elizabeth Tasker
@elizabethtasker@mastodon.online

I’m in a long line for the bag drop at the airport. A robotic cart joined the queue. It alternated between demanding people move in Japanese and English, and voicing the same demands at a variety of barriers.

People have done their best to acquiesce to its demands, but it’s now stationary and shouting in multiple languages.
ALT-TEXT: A small robotic cart (purpose not clear!) sits in a relatively clear area of the airport hall, as people have tried to meet its demands to scat.



Feb 04, 2024, 09:59 · · 0 · 0

[Irrev-Black]

DDOS attack from 3 million bot-netted

fucking

TOOTHBRUSHES!

Apart from jokes about brushing up on one's infosec, all I can say is "why does a toothbrush need connectivity?"

https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/s ... ck-really/

[stevebrooks]

Smart Phone traffic cams;

Friend Kishori Breeze took on Frank’s case because, ironically, he needed a mobile number and email to lodge an appeal.

The magistrate made a big booboo, I suspect there's a case for legal action against the magistrate, she obviously doesn't know the rules of evidence, you can't just declare someone guilty, as she apparently did here, this would be miscarriage of justice and maybe she needs to be removed from her position, who know how many innocent people she has railroaded simply be declaring them guilty?

“When Frank tried to say, ‘I don’t have a mobile phone and I’ve never’ … (the Byron Bay Magistrate) butt in and she said, ‘You do own a mobile phone’.”

Lawyer Richard Mitry said the typical attitude of innocence until proven guilty wasn’t always applied when it comes to traffic offences.

“It’s actually the other way around with most traffic offences,” Mitry said.

“So in this case, you’ve assumed that you’ve done the wrong thing based on the fact that a camera snapped you, and the camera thought you were doing the wrong thing.”

Now that may be the case, but camera's don't think, people think, and people thinking is appeared to what is remiss here. If he declares he doesn't have a mobile phone, statutory declaration of whatever or under oath in front of a magistrate, it's then not up to him to prove a negative. The camera does lie, but only by proxy!

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-ac ... f9ad3dd31d

[Irrev-Black]

DDOS attack from 3 million bot-netted

fucking

TOOTHBRUSHES!

Apart from jokes about brushing up on one's infosec, all I can say is "why does a toothbrush need connectivity?"

https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/s ... ck-really/

Le Whoops on the brushes.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/202 ... o-be-true/

Colour me Sucked In.

https://bne.social/@Elizafox@treehouse. ... 4101250598

[stylofone]

Colour me Sucked In.

https://bne.social/@Elizafox@treehouse. ... 4101250598

I could claim that I wasn't sucked in, although I would need to provide some evidence to back that claim, e.g. if I had made a post saying "this sounds bad, but let's wait for some more details so we know what really happened here".

What I find interesting is that the post from ElizaFox implicitly claims that Eliza was not "sucked in". I doubt that there is a post providing evidence for this. We just need to accept Eliza's wisdom on this issue.

Eliza goes further and suggests that there is "propaganda" about the dangers of so-called smart devices. I don't think this is the case, I think there is legitimate concern, but there is also broad ignorance about the technology. When you think about it, the toothbrushes aren't that smart (yet), the malware would have to be in the apps which connect the toothbrushes to the internet. Malware in apps is not novel. The toothbrush thing, on the other hand, is an eye-catching headline for the legacy media, a clickbait opportunity for new media, and the sort of thing that people might share on social media, before they learn it was a hypothetical scenario which was misunderstood and/or misrepresented, not a claim of an actual event.

Weirdly, ElizaFox's retrospective claim of wisdom is another form of clickbait. Sharing her post is quite possibly a manifestation of the phenomenon she ascribes to a far-right chud. "Join me in being one of the clever ones. You've heard of Big Tech and Big Pharma, but now we have to stop Big Skepticism".

I would have been tempted to make a comment to that effect on Eliza's feed, but it is so prolific, with many posts and boosts per hour, I couldn't be bothered wading through it. I have noticed a few other specious mastodon accounts like this. I suspect their owners have been trained by the algorithms of twitter et al to seek the embiggening sensation of "engagement".

[stylofone]

Hmm, when surveillance capitalism and authoritarian technocracy cross over from the online world and create physical manifestations of their industrial tumours, the urge to set fire to them could become overwhelming!

https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/tor ... he-growing

[Irrev-Black]

The ongoing enshittification of jalapeno peppers.

https://www.dmagazine.com/food-drink/20 ... me-aggies/

[joele]

Nintendo coming after yuzu (Nintendo switch emulator) as under the DMCA you are not allowed to play Nintendo games on non Nintendo hardware.

Legal emulation or no, Yuzu may not want to risk finding out in a court of law. Many small bands of developers have axed their projects after being approached by Nintendo, and it wouldn’t be surprising if Yuzu settled. “I’d say the claim here is enough to get a reasonable emulator company to cease, desist, and settle claims,” says Hoeg. “But remember that this is only one side of the story at present.”

The stupid thing is yuzu is totally free and open source, its a stretch to call it an "emulator company". Thousands of people are already downloading the source and/or forking the project.. Even if Nintendo win the case it won't make one iota of difference, it is way too late.

I see the problem for Nintendo but too bad, they're crazy thinking they can stop an open source project by suing the individuals that contributed to it.

https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/27/2408 ... zu-lawsuit

[stevebrooks]

Smart Phone traffic cams;

Friend Kishori Breeze took on Frank’s case because, ironically, he needed a mobile number and email to lodge an appeal.

The magistrate made a big booboo, I suspect there's a case for legal action against the magistrate, she obviously doesn't know the rules of evidence, you can't just declare someone guilty, as she apparently did here, this would be miscarriage of justice and maybe she needs to be removed from her position, who know how many innocent people she has railroaded simply be declaring them guilty?

“When Frank tried to say, ‘I don’t have a mobile phone and I’ve never’ … (the Byron Bay Magistrate) butt in and she said, ‘You do own a mobile phone’.”

Lawyer Richard Mitry said the typical attitude of innocence until proven guilty wasn’t always applied when it comes to traffic offences.

“It’s actually the other way around with most traffic offences,” Mitry said.

“So in this case, you’ve assumed that you’ve done the wrong thing based on the fact that a camera snapped you, and the camera thought you were doing the wrong thing.”

Now that may be the case, but camera's don't think, people think, and people thinking is appeared to what is remiss here. If he declares he doesn't have a mobile phone, statutory declaration of whatever or under oath in front of a magistrate, it's then not up to him to prove a negative. The camera does lie, but only by proxy!

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-ac ... f9ad3dd31d

Despite the risk of incurring substantial legal fees, Singh, with the help of his friend Kishori Breeze, who himself owned a mobile phone, challenged the fine.

The initial appeal to the local tax office was rejected, compelling Singh to take the matter to court. In an unexpected turn of events, officials retracted the fine without explanation and informed Singh he was no longer required to appear in court, providing a sigh of relief to the pensioner

The fine was retracted, curious, I would think the authorities would want this clarified and a ruling whether or not traffic camera's must be correct and fines issued regardless of the actual facts. It's almost as if they didn't want this to go to court, maybe there are "other" cases where the fined people just paid the fines rather than argue, maybe there are a LOT of other cases where people paid the fine and weren't actually guilty!

https://www.drivencarguide.co.nz/news/p ... detection/