Daemon Silverstein

@int32@lemmy.dbzer0.com

There is Android virtualization already (e.g. Genymotion, Android-x86 project, QEMU, among other projects), but just as “Red-Pill” can detect virtualization for x86-based systems, the same concept applies to ARM-based virtualization, and banking apps would likely detect the atypical environment. Also, things such as fingerprint reader (needed to authenticate for certain banks) are likely to not work properly for emulated environments.

@mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works

I’m Brazilian and many Brazilian banks require apps, be it for generating a unique code (e.g. Itaú’s iToken) to authorize/authenticate, to scan a QR code every time the Web client requests an action (e.g. Mercado Pago and Santander), or even to do mobile-only transactions such as Pix (Brazilian instant payment/transfer) because our Central Bank (BACEN, who created and maintains Pix nationwide) requires banks to limit Pix in a per-device basis. The latter is crucial because Pix became the main payment method around here, and it can’t be done through Web browsers.

Then, there are the “safety measures” inherent to these banking apps, so they refuse to work outside rawdogged Android/iOS. Even enabling “Developer mode” or having some apps installed (such as Termux; apps can see which other apps you have installed) is enough for some banks to refuse logging in (and certain banking apps won’t even tell why, just some generic error message).

Also, depending on where a person works, the employer may require the employee to receive their paycheck at a specific bank, which in turn will require an app if the employee is willing to use their own paycheck to pay their bills. Banks have been trying to push their mobile internet banking to their customers, with many banks (such as Bradesco) closing many of their physical branches so people have no nearby ATMs to do banking things.

Finally, even browser-based internet banking (e.g. Caixa Econômica Federal) sometimes require the installation of software akin to kernel-level anti-cheat because “muh security”, and some will support neither Linux nor virtualized Windows (most (if not all) virtualization hypervisors can be easily detected by techniques such as the Red-Pill).

So it’s not as easy as “use the browser versions”, unfortunately.

@Sailor88@lemmy.world @ComradePedro@lemmy.ml

I’d really love a Linux phone (personally, I have a Linux PC and I use Arch, btw) so don’t get me wrong when I question: what about the banking and government apps? Yeah, because finance systems are getting increasingly digital around the world and every payment will eventually need to involve banking apps, and you guessed it: just Android (Google) and iOS (Apple), no Linux, no KaiOS. One will eventually need apps to pay for rent and consumer bills, even for buying groceries, as fiat currency will get more digital and less physical.

And, no, European Union won’t fight against it because, in fact, the same European Union is seeking to digitalize EUR (see “ECB publishes third progress report on the digital euro preparation phase”, published by European Central Bank on 16 July 2025). It’s not a matter of if, but when physical currencies will become ruled out, and “For Our Security™”, Linux (alonside other alternative OSes) will either be ruled out from internet banking altogether or it’ll be forced to comply with “security requirements” that, in practice, would turn Linux indistinguishable from Android and iOS.

And this seems to be where everywhere is headed, it’s not just an European or USian phenomenon. The future is bleak.

@mysticmartz@lemmy.world

Those LoRa devices like meshtastic look good

Yeah, tinkering with radio and Open-source hardware in general is funny and awesome. I did some personal projects in this regard, not exactly meshtastic, but experiments using a cheap RTL-SDR and some transmission-capable things such as Baofeng UV-5R and remote controllers from some of my childhood toys. I wish I could afford to experiment more with hardware, electronic and, especially, radio equipment.

Unfortunately, it’s like @dubyakay@lemmy.ca said, radio equipment can become targets, too.

In reality, this is already happening in EU: recently, I saw something about EU passing a law requiring all radio-capable devices to be, as far as I can recall, “tampering-proof” or something similar, and this is threatening alternative mobile OSes (such as GrapheneOS) because this law requires bootloaders to be unlockable or something. So, in practice, governments are already targeting radio.

Not to mention how “easy” is to triangulate a signal and how telecommunication regulators often do “wardrive” scanning in order to seek “irregular transmissions” (not just those disrupting others’ transmissions, but anything they could deem “irregular” because they’re the authorities in charge of allowing or refusing others rights, and this deemed “irregularity” could easily be using Briar through Bluetooth, or meshtastic nodes, during a strike/protest).

This takes me to another point from your reply:

I don’t like the idea of TOR and I2C because it’s known to hold disgusting and concerning stuff

It’s worth mentioning that disgusting and concerning stuff isn’t exclusive to Darknet, Clearnet also has such stuff, especially mainstream social media.

I mean, you’re not wrong, Darknet is indeed used for that, not because it’s inherent to Darknet, but because people who do concerning stuff also seek anonymity just like legitimate, well-intentioned privacy-concerned people, and Darknet happens to provide such anonymity for both uses in a double-edged sword manner.

Problem is: there’s no way to differentiate two anonymous actors without breaking the very fundamentum of anonymity.

And this very argument you used unfortunately can be twisted by authorities to justify breaking anonymity and, by extension, privacy.

For authorities willing to control everyone’s lives so badly, it just takes a small leap for the phrase to be reshaped and re-adapted as…

“private content/people’s intimacies must be scanned/watched because they’re known to hold disgusting and concerning stuff”

This is almost the argument behind EU’s “Chat Control”. And the majority of people end up joining this bandwagon unaware of where this bandwagon leads to: something that makes 1984 feel like a sugarcoated documentary.

Unfortunately, there’s no easy solution regarding “disgusting and concerning stuff”, but we should be really careful lest to throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater.

@mysticmartz@lemmy.world

First and foremost, it’s not something limited to UK. Maybe it’s because I’m watching things from “outside” the so-called “first world” (I’m Brazilian), and I can’t help but notice how it’s something that have been spreading throughout the countries: Canadian bill whose number I forgot, EU’s “Chat Control”, some Australian laws, etc… It’s getting everywhere! It didn’t start yesterday, also: I remember SOPA and PIPA back in 2010s (or was it 2000s? I’m getting old).

It’s worldwide, and it won’t be long before there are no more countries where “nothing to fear, nothing to hide” is the official motto via some kind of global treat/pact. It won’t stop in adult entertainment: eventually, it’ll cover every online activity. In this sense, “children” are just the frogs being morally leveraged by scorpions to cross an Orwellian river.

That said, VPNs are someone else’s computers sitting between latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates delimiting some geodesic convex hull we know as “country/nation” ruled by an entity who happens to have the monopoly over asymmetrical forces ruling over that very someone. Even nodes from Tor, I2P, Yggdrasil, Hyphanet, GNUNet, Usenet servers or grand-old SOCKS4/SOCKS4a/SOCKS5 proxies are someone else’s computer sitting inside some “country”.

And if all countries end up agreeing, out of shared dominance interests (even the so-called “inimical” countries, because even those “inimical” countries agree on certain treats such as the Global Treat regarding Antarctica), to some kind of “Online Kid Protection Global Treat” or whatever frog they can take any moral advantage of, there will be no computer proxification left for circumventing the new KYC requirements for accessing the Web, because there’ll be no more alternative countries left… Not even micronations such as Principality of Sealand.

Yeah, future doesn’t seem good, and the majority of global citizens won’t fight against it (we, privacy-conscious and tech-savvy people, we’re not the majority), so it’s kind of a Cassandra curse going on right now.

Maybe we must go back to radio communication? Radio mesh networks? Perhaps well-hidden geo-treasure pen-drives for exchanging and archiving files? Creating our own novel ciphering methods, steganography and security through obscurity, becoming able to physically speak through coded language on a daily basis? Even carrier pigeons and smoke signaling (I’m not joking) feels “safe” and out of the Orwellian reaches for now… For now.

(I guess they could still be spotted by LEO satellite imagery. And god-forbid a smoke pattern is caught modulating and transmitting the original uncropped Lena picture over the atmosphere /s).

@Zerush@lemmy.ml

Well, as both a programmer and an occult/esoteric cosmicist person, I’m somewhat divided.

On the one hand, i’d not call it “advance” too, insofar it’s something that was already around way before humans (intelligence is just a facet of the order emerged from primordial chaos, Ordo Ab Chao).

On the other hand, considering a pure anthropocentric-technological perspective, it would be “a helluva advance” insofar it’d demand a slightly different computational architecture (current transistor-built logical gates are incapable of fully mimicking neurochemical-oriented processes, for example, and photonics, despite the non-linearity, have its own issues as well), one that would still maintain some compatibility with current electronic circuitry (so it could be integrated with existing tech, such as Internet connectivity) while still being able to “materialize” the same phenomenon that allows living beings (including, but not limited to humans) to achieve meaning-making and problem-solving in some non-linear, “non-deterministic” (algorithmically speaking) fashion. IMHO, organic tissue isn’t something too otherworldly to hold exclusivity on the emergence of such phenomena, so it could be replicated and observed beyond the biological gray matter.

And in this sense, the goosebumps (at least for me) would emerge from the fact that it’d prove intelligence not as a special phenomenon, but part of this eternal tug-of-war between entropy and life, darkness and light, chaos and order, that have been taking place beyond the cosmos. It would be a big step for confirming intelligence/sentience as another “ancient” (as in predating modern human society) emergent phenomenon. It would confirm humans, alongside all lifeforms, as just tiny specks of dust within the fabric of the spacetime continuum.

@Zerush@lemmy.ml

Monkeys can’t write, only hit random keys, but several monkey brains interconnected with each other, with an LLM, can.

In such a scenario, there’d still be a random factor behind the monkey’s behaviors: less of a pure randomness, more of a Weasel Program.

how many monkey brains are needed to connect to have the capability of an human brain.

I often consider the Homo sapiens intelligence not as superior than other species, but just a different approach for problem-solving capabilities and tool-making among living beings. For instance, crows (particularly the New Caledonian crow) are well-known for exceptional intelligence, because they’re not just able to use tools, they’re also able to use tools to make/fix other tools (just like humans).

That said, I bet it would require less crow brains than monkey brains for human-like intelligence to emerge, despite primates being genetically closer to humans. Crows are awesome.

@yogthos@lemmy.ml Given enough time and a computational cluster containing countless Darwin monkeys replicated, would some of those Darwin monkeys end up writing the entire corpus of Shakespeare’s works?

@Majestic@lemmy.ml @KurtVonnegut@mander.xyz

There’s no way around this that doesn’t involve painstaking steganography which can possibly be nailed by AI anyways.

As both a fairly power user of LLMs and someone who tinkers with ciphers a lot (including creating my own techniques), I can guarantee: Markov chains aren’t smart enough to detect well-elaborate ciphers.

I’ll give an example: Let focus on plain characters.

The previous phrase contains a hidden message. It’s not simply an acrostic (when a word is formed by every initial letter from a sentence/verses/paragraphs), it’s an acrostic with Caesar cipher. And it’s not simply Caesar cipher, it’s a Caesar cipher with increasing shifting (decreasing when decoding):

L (-0 -> L), F (-1 -> E), O (-2 -> M), P (-3 -> M), C (-4 -> Y as it wraps around from A back to Z) => LEMMY

I can guarantee you, as someone who tested every single LLM out there: they’re unable to detect these kinds of ciphers. And it gets worse when we consider the possibility of adding other layers of ciphering: nothing stops me from adding Vigenere on top of Caesar, associating the letter with the corresponding number, then getting the nth prime at that position, and using wrap-add to add letters to produce another letter (okay, this is a very complicated example).

Also, when I say “creating my own techniques”, I’m not joking. I’ll present you with a cipher I created:

Maceió, Niterói, Rio Branco, Palmas, São Luís, Varginha.

Believe it or not, the previous list of Brazilian cities hides the word “BRAZIL”. How? List each Brazilian state alphabetically (excluding Distrito Federal as it’s an administrative state rather than a common state), and you’ll get a list with exactly 26 states. And what else have 26 elements? The English alphabet. Map each alphabetical letter not just to the state (e.g. L, the 12th letter, would be Minas Gerais), but to a city within that state (e.g. Varginha):

Maceió = Alagoas = 2nd from ordered list of states = B
Niterói = Rio de Janeiro state = 18th = R
Rio Branco = Acre = 1st = A
Palmas = Tocantins = 26th = Z
São Luís = Maranhão = 9th = I
Varginha = Minas Gerais = 12th = L

Again, creativity is the only limit. One can wrap it in steganography, use random coordinates and then map each digit to letters to form a long text… There’s no way to stop end-to-end encryption when two or more people have enough knowledge to convey their own tool chain of ciphering techniques. And LLMs will be clueless. Even human censors would be clueless.

@Ephera@lemmy.ml @dating1999@lemmy.ca

site:domain.tld does work, as an and x constraint. I often use it.
It seems to me like the OP’s specific and (not x) usage of site:domain.tld is the reason why it isn’t working. While the negation prefix (-) does work for tokens/words (e.g. mercury -freddie), it’s probably transforming site into a token not to be included in the results (i.e. "any results that don’t contain the word “site”) which, disconnected from the rest of the sentence (:quora.com), turns the latter into part of what the results should include, so the query ends up being something like:

Filter all the indexed Web results where its contents don’t include the word “site”, possibly do include “quora.com”, possibly do include “Molten”, possibly do include “boron”, possibly do include “oxide”, possibly do include “attacks”, possibly do include “silicates”

The negation prefix has a similar effect to that of positive (+) prefix (e.g. “mercury +periodic +table”) as it turns the word into a required condition (must be present for “+”, must be absent for “-”) rather than an optional condition (i.e a search for “mercury periodic table”, without quotes, will contain pages with all three words in any order, pages with just two of the three words (such as “mercury periodic” in any order) and pages with only one of the three words (such as “mercury” which would include pages talking about the singer, and pages talking about the planet and pages talking about the Roman deity), ranked by “relevance”).

As Quora pages do include “quora.com” somewhere within the page body, the first results will be from Quora because it’s part of the parsed condition (which is to optionally include “quora.com” as part of the result while discarding results containing the verbatim word “site”).