...like I didn't, here are snippets from Wikipedia:

- NotebookLM (Google NotebookLM) is a research and note-taking online tool developed by Google Labs that uses artificial intelligence (AI), specifically Google Gemini, to assist users in interacting with their documents.

- NotebookLM can generate summaries, explanations, and answers based on content uploaded by users. It also includes "Audio Overviews," which summarize documents in a conversational, podcast-like format.

- In addition to text files, NotebookLM can process PDFs, Google Docs, websites, and Google Slides. It can only process videos that have a transcript or subtitles attached as it cannot extract transcripts from videos that lack it.

"a workplace surveillance app used by over 200,000 people across countless companies."

If we're talking a neighborhood of 200,000 people, some AI-based counter should be able to determine that, should be 200,000 or fewer.

I'm reading over some of the 5.2 and from the perspective of someone who played 1st edition Advanced D&D in the early 80's a lot of it seems like complicating fluff that would make the game less fun. Are there groups that stick to a previous edition, even perhaps 1st edition? I still have my 1st edition Player's Handbook, DM Guide, Monster Manual, a bunch of modules, a smooshed World of Greyhawk box set, and a pile of Dragon Magazines.

I'm old enough to have deceased FB friend accounts still connected. Some have gone away, maybe families delete their pages. But it is nice to click on an old friend's page sometimes while it is there.

A wipe of friends lists would eliminate that. Bummer and I can "live" with it. But the next thing to deal with is I already have too many friend requests by fake accounts that use info from existing "real" friends. So it will be very hard to re-constitute a new friends list because I don't know who is real and who is a scammer. As others have said, I'd probably just delete the account, obituary info is about all I really use it for TBO. I'm sure FB execs figured that out and that's why they didn't do it.

When Google did what it does and deprecated Google Play Music, which had been my Android music streaming solution of my own music collection for years, I moved my ripped music collection to a Plex server where my movies and TV shows already were, ignoring the Google Play Music transition to YouTube music.

The Plex Pass got me access to Plex Amp, their mobile music streaming app. I sprung for lifetime, no regrets.

But cheating is nothing new, or parents doing papers for kids. She had to move to pen-and-paper for tests starting last year. Evidently the kids won't study the material, but will find time to learn to beat whatever blocks and such the schools try to apply to their Chromebooks so they can cheat.

She has also seen teachers using AI to create lessons. So now we have an AI cycle with human spectators if you don't break it with pen-and-paper somewhere... the AI-sourced lesson is tested with an AI-assisted cheating test-taker, then AI grades the tests.

> SpaceX is super quick at making rapid changes and improvements, but has recently failed pretty badly.

Did you even watch a booster catch? Or a booster landing on a drone ship? Those are failures? Lifting cargo from Earth at a tenth of what NASA needed to charge, a failure? Losing two Starships in _test flights_ is a setback, not a failure.

This reminds me of when I used the first iPhone at an Apple store when it launched. Doing a smooth screen rotation by turning the phone, and pinch-to-zoom on a map app, looked like alien technology. Then Motorola, HTC, Samsung, Blackberry, LG and others scrambled to release touchscreen phones. Most were awful in terms of screen responsiveness to touch, and they were laggy.

Competitors in space vehicle re-use will come, because re-use will be table-stakes for space.

KnowBe4 staff should watch The Inside Man season three, it will give some tips on personal identification, AI deepfakes, etc.

Fair Use Doctrine had been around way before CDs (and in some forms, way before recorded audio works at all). For example it was not illegal to buy a CD (or LP), copy it to a cassette, and play that cassette in your car for your own use (ref final codifying of this right in AHRA of 1992). If you sold or gave away copies, that is where you ran afoul of the law because you interfered with the distribution rights of the work's author, which is what copyright laws protect.

An issue with this approach is you also have to train younger people in the older tools, or else when the geezers retire off there's no one to hire to maintain those products. And that means you have to find younger people to willingly spend time training in older tools.

I don't know about you, but when I was younger I didn't want to learn the outgoing COBOL, I wanted to learn Delphi, Java, Linux, etc, the brand new stuff. I'm sure there were plenty of geezers back then saying the COBOL interfaces were fine and those new-fangled event-driven RAD tools weren't needed. You can't just drive out the youthful desire to hack at new tech, we didn't hold ourselves to that same standard, and if we did we'd be 20 years back in tech innovation, still manually-setting IRQ and SCSI IDs.

On the one hand, I don't want to touch this, lest someone someday might say I didn't create the music I composed, recorded and published.

On the other hand, my music likely was included in the AI training, so in effect I'd arguably be, at least partially, ripping off myself.

I read all three books. The series can be dense at points, but certain scenes blew me away. And there are concepts in the second book that may have you question the wisdom of any outward signals of our civilization. The third book got a little out-there theoretically toward the end but it was a take on the far, far-future.

There was one space battle scene in the second book that was so cool I read it a few times. I enjoyed book two the most.

>> To change the password every 2 months
> There are now numerous recommendations to _not_ do that, including from the well-known
> security standards like BSI and NIST because it _decreases_ security. (Why? Just try to
> come up with an attack where this actually helps.

I give the scenario of the audit given in the article in the OP. They waited 90 days from their hash dump to ensure none of the passwords they found will be the passwords in current use against the login/email IDs. If the Department's user account DB of hashed passwords is somehow stolen then the login credentials, even if cracked and the theft undetected, have a 90-day time limit of being any good to them because the password base will have fully refreshed by then.

I fully acknowledge 90 days is plenty of time to crack a good number of them in a theoretical dump theft, I'm just giving an attack scenario where periodic password changes may be helpful.

From TFA: "the Department of the Interior provided the password hashes of every user account to the watchdog, which then waited 90 days for the passwords to expire — per the department’s own password policy — before it was safe to attempt to crack them.".

So the study as-conducted assumes that the bad actor had already obtained access to some internal data, enough to get at all the hashes. I curious why the article doesn't say whether the Department also supplied all the salts or not. Which could mean the same salt is used for all the passwords (bad), or unique salts are indeed used but this company's rig was able to blow through that (worse for the good guys). Or the company actually got the salts too and the article didn't mention it (a little better).

But they probably did this for a good reason, to allow for the password testing while preventing DOS or other side-effects of brute-forcing their production systems, allowing an offline (to the Department) test environment. If this company had white-hat-brute-forced password attempts on thousands of accounts in production systems at the same time that a legit bad actor happened to be doing the same, one can imagine that may be an issue.

By "safe to attempt to crack them" after 90 days, I take it to mean the passwords they found (in theory) no longer exist on departmental systems for the users that had them.