Hacker Timesnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | daveoc64's commentslogin

As noted elsewhere, that approach doesn't stop someone flying the plane into a building.

My understanding is that flight security protocols and cockpit hardening introduced after 9/11 made it significantly harder to replicate what happened that day.

I've recently purchased a couple of the Home Assistant Voice Preview Edition devices, and they leave a lot to be desired.

The wake word detection isn't great, and the audio quality is abysmal (for voice responses, not music).

Amazon has ruined their Alexa and Echo devices with ads and annoying nag messages.

I'd really like an open alternative, but the basics are lacking right now.


Can those devices (Amazon) be _jail broken_? I was just wondering that this morning while taking a shower.


Generally no. Big tech companies have gotten good at locking down devices to the boot loader. Some of the signing keys for certain OTA versions have leaked, but you can’t rely on that.

Some of the devices contain browsers, and people have set up hacky ways to turn them into thin clients through that, but it’s not particularly reliable IME.

I heard some Chinese brands which made similar hardware for Chinese consumers don’t lock their devices down, letting you flash an open install of Android on them, but I haven’t seen anyone try that IRL.



Youtube is trying to push me to watch a video about jail breaking the Echo Show for a week now. I didn't watch it, but it's probably easy to find.


The standard for this in the UK is that you should make a reasonable effort to work out who was driving.

e.g. checking your calendar/diary, looking through receipts or bank statements to work out where you likely were.

There's also a requirement that a request for information is sent within 14 days for minor incidents like speeding or red light violations, so it's not like you have to work out who was driving on a Tuesday morning three years ago.


That’s not how it works in the United States. I was driving my (female) partner’s car and received a citation. I gave the cop my license but he pulled the owner’s (my female partner) driving record using her vehicle’s license plate (is what I’m guessing happened) and issued her the citation instead of me. I was very excited since this meant I was going to get away without a citation.

I gave her the citation and she called the cop who issued the citation and asked him who was driving at the time. He answered that a man was driving, and she told him he issued the citation to her, a woman. Her first name is one letter away from a male first name, so I’m guessing the cop saw it and assumed it was me and not her.

He got frustrated and told her to go ahead and rip the citation up since he wrote it to the wrong driver, she told him she’d show up to court and the judge would instantly dismiss the ticket due to the officer pulling over a man and issuing the citation to a woman, so he canceled it. He didn’t want to look like a complete fool in front of a judge.

Not once did he ask who was actually driving because he knows she is never going to tell him and he can’t force her to reveal that it was me.


Why not just drive under the speed limit and sober instead of giggling about avoiding penalties while endangering us all?

Note that not once did you mention that you were innocent.


> and sober

Why would you presume GP was drunk?

Also, it's completely common and safe to drive slightly over the speed limit in some circumstances, and in many parts of the US it's exceedingly rare for people to drive below the speed limit as you suggest. In many places the tickets are essentially written more for not seeing the cop and slowing down than for actually doing 78 in a 65.


I was not drunk, I haven’t had a drink in over 10 years and I’ve never driven drunk.

I did not say I was innocent of the violation because I was not innocent, I never claimed to be.


Exactly, that's why I'm saying, why are you cheering about getting off on a technicality?


Because I didn’t have to pay a fine and my insurance rates didn’t go up. If you’re trying to make me feel guilty, it’s not going to work.


Based on what others have suggested, I've just tried out pandoc for this, and it's produced really good results in CommonMark from some quite hideous Word documents.


That's a normal legal term in the UK:

https://www.gov.uk/redundancy-your-rights


> if you are paying for internet access you have to be over 18, no?

No, that's not the case.


every contract by every ISP i have ever signed has required me to be over the age of 18 to enter the contract.


In many countries, it's possible to get a prepaid SIM with data access - without any ID or age requirement whatsoever.


ah, fair, but with an easy enough fix. make data-enabled SIM cards be 18+ (or whatever age). show ID to the store clerk at purchase time, just like if you were buying smokes/alcohol.


And then how does public wifi work? Stand outside a Weatherspoons, or just walk down a highstreet with free internet, back to square one


seems dead simple to me: if you host public wifi, you are responsible for the people that use it. easy!

just like you already are responsible for what happens on your free public network (torrenting, hacking, CSAM, etc.) in most jurisdictions

(for what its worth, i think age verification is dumb. but it looks like we're getting it one way or the other)


Rachel has blogged quite a bit about blocking badly behaved RSS Clients in recent years.

I'd link you to one of the articles if I wasn't blocked too, and my VPN wasn't also blocked!


> Rachel has blogged quite a bit about blocking badly behaved RSS Clients in recent years.

Unfortunately that blocking is buggy and overzealous.

I just gave up eventually and unsubscribed from the RSS feed.


All the comments there seem to suggest that there has been no change and that robots.txt isn't required.


I'm glad I'm not the only one with this problem!



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: