By itself this doesn't mean he was directly compromised. We need to be really careful about inferring things from presence on these stealer lists and breach tracking sites. This is the second time in the last couple weeks that I have seen a "stealer" list being used to discredit someone.

You can easily end up on these without having ever had a directly compromised device of your own. If you have an email password combination that was breached in any of the many public breaches listed out there (see https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhaveibeenpwned.com%2F), all it takes is that credential to have ended up in the list being used by another nefarious actor to attempt attacks on new targets.

These are public lists, and if an attacker is using that list to attack another target, and the attacker's machines are also compromised (if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas).... that's it, you are now potentially in that list associated with other services than the originating service. It doesn't mean anything other than you had an account with a previously known password from a breach.

So yeah... it might infer this guy's opsec is terrible, It might indicate he was hacked, but it just as easily---and probably more likely--- might indicate nothing other than he was a victim of a 3rd party breach (like almost all of us who have been around a while will have been) and then someone else using that list was hacked... E.g. a password on a throw-away website/forum 20 years ago that was breached, forever plays forward in future attacks based on those lists. It appears as a new compromise, when it isn't.

From TFA..

"
As Lee notes, the presence of an individualâ(TM)s credentials in such logs isnâ(TM)t automatically an indication that the individual himself was compromised or used a weak password. In many cases, such data is exposed through database compromises that hit the service provider. The steady stream of published credentials for Schutt, however, is a clear indication that the credentials he has used over a decade or more have been publicly known at various points.
"

Not sure Woz still frequents these parts, but if he does.. Best wishes Woz!

I never felt the need to stop using Slashdot, it just faded a bit from my daily news refresh cycle. Reddit/Twitter by contrast has actively repulsed me enough to seek decentralized alternatives (Mastodon/Kbin/Lemmy/etc).

Will there be a flood of reddit users here today and tomorrow, I wonder?

I'm curious about this... given that it's trivial to get GPT to write in different styles, and that presumably can be automated, isn't it just a matter of time before it becomes an arms race?

Soon I'll have a thought, ask ChatGPT to turn my one-phrase idea into a 3-page memo to email my boss, only for him to use ChatGPT to summarize it for him into one concise phrase.

This may sound inane, but I think it's profound. Soon, a big chunk if not the vast majority of content will be AI-generated, and we'll use AI to filter it. The next evolution of crowdsourcing.

> All of their uses cases today rely on central authorities, which negate the need for the NFT in the first place.

Not really. The blockchain doesn't rely on a central authority. Each entity can publish to the blockchain *and* can read the blockchain. But they can't alter the blockchain or change history as they could in their own database.

Let's say Activision mints tokens for "Call of Duty" skins. Users can trade the tokens, blah, blah, blah, they get the skins in the game. But *anyone* else can read the blockchain.

Take a "Call of Duty" message board, completely unaffiliated with the game. Since users can prove they own a token the message board can use that information for whatever: to allow those users to have a different display or tag or access or run a poll "Who here with Skin X uses it often?" and only people who actually do have Skin X can vote.

Soon "Destiny 4: Gleaming the Cube" is released and people start trading Destiny gear for Call of Duty gear. Two different publishers. One blockchain. Fully capable of interoperability.

This is of course a trivial example. There are so many possibilities for NFTs that it's impossible that there isn't at least one that will take off. I feel like it's the 90s people telling me why email won't be a big deal or the early 2000s that movies are too big to be practical to pirate or stream.

I guess the TLDR would be: Centralized databases can be changed arbitrarily, blockchains can't.

> That's what NFTs are like to me, except they aren't even unique, not really. And everyone with 2 brain cells to rub together knows it.

Have you ever bought tickets to an event with assigned seating? All the tickets look the same, but they cost different amounts. Because you're not buying the *ticket* you're buying access to a seat and the ticket is just a token that you have indicating said access.

So none of the tickets are the same. They're non-fungible tokens. Some get you into VIP areas and free stuff and some only let you go to the nosebleeds.

Tickets can be easy to fake, though. Big games the the Super Bowl end up with a ton of people with fake tickets super pissed that they can't get into the game and don't have their cash.

So instead of using tickets as your NFT you use a blockchain NFT and app. This way the NFL issues the NFTs for the seats. When buying a ticket you can see that the NFT was issued by the NFL and is valid, then the NFT is moved to your wallet. That can't be counterfeited. No fake tickets scams.

Apply it to artwork to ensure provenance.

NFTs are tokens. That's it. Nothing special about them. Just like a car title is just a piece of paper that holds no value, but as it's a token for ownership of the actual car.

Except that NFTs are secure and can't be forged or counterfeit.

Once upon a time they had a “neutral point of view” policy. They dropped it so that editors could insert their own point of view. This ruined Wikipedia.

It's incredibly sad to watch a once beautiful thing turn into such a steaming pile of biased crap. At this point I just assume any page about anything political isn't even close to telling the whole truth; the rest of the entries are starting to become suspect as well.

He sexually assaulted an intern, got caught, lied about it under oath and only got charged with perjury. Given the power dynamics between the president of the USA and an intern there's no way the intern could reasonably consent. #metoo should be all over it.

Basically if Clinton did nothing wrong using his position of power over multiple women than neither did Weinstein. And nobody is jumping to defend him.

Don't defend rapists because of politics.

Nothing like some good ol' fashioned GPL fud. Takes me back to the good ol days.

I like how you make up an argument for your opponent and then argue against that. I wish there was a term for that.

But, if you want to join a company and one of their requirements is home searches then it's your choice. You can choose when and where to exercise or waive your rights. You may sign an NDA, which means your agree to waive your freedom of speech about certain issues.

If you want to be a foster parent, for example, you must submit to home searches.

In the future don't make up an argument to argue against. It's sad.

Your 2TB SATA example is literally what I went through last week trying to pick some drives for an external enclosure. I left and went to newegg and actually got what I wanted. I'm not sure I'd go to https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.westerndigital.com... to buy a drive.

I can definitely see better niche sites with better ways to search for that type of product. Searching for computer components is different from shopping for clothing which is different than shopping for cleaning supplies.

Finally some sanity on /. political post and here I am without mod points.

This clearly screws over the people who need gig jobs the most and in the most condescending way. "You're too stupid to make decisions on your own, let the government make a one-size-fits-special-interests decision for everyone!"