Looks awesome! I see some Flipper Zero apps were already created. When will you be releasing this for the Chameleon? Also, any plans to port this over to the Proxmark?
All of the attacks are released for the three platforms (Proxmark3, Flipper Zero, and Chameleon Ultra). Our goal was day 1 support for RFID testing devices.
I was a teenager in high school around 2005 and living in the Midwest. There were lots of underage drinking and parties going on during that time.
That being said, most of it was "cool parents" that allowed such behavior because we didn't own anything as teens.
We would have rules like, if you're drinking there, you have to stay the night or call your parents to pick you up.
I think it was just a different time; it seemed more forgiving. Now, a cop will pull you over and give you a DUI and mess up your life for a while. But I heard stories back then ~ '70s, where cops would make sure a drunk person got home safely at night instead of throwing the book at them.
I am sure it is harder for kids today who mostly live online in their algorithmic bubbles. And harder for parents to condone such activity, because who wants to be the parent where cops come knocking on your door and charge you with supplying alcohol to minors?
Elaborating on this a bit, I think it's less that things are less forgiving, but that our risk tolerances have dramatically shrunk. Millennial parents are less risk tolerant with their kids' safety, and Gen Z / A kids and young adults are more careful about the rules.
The root cause of this risk intolerance might be dispersed, just a cumulative result of cable news scare tactics, dropping birth rates and more investment per child, but I suspect a big aspect of it is that risk taking is no longer the only way to get a dopamine hit. Prior to the modern internet, if you avoided all the normal risk-taking behaviors associated with teenagers and young adults, you'd just be bored to death. Now the reward side of the risk-reward balance is just the difference between high-quality fun from meatspace shenanigans versus lower-quality enjoyment derived from social media and online gaming.
Similar age (a bit older) but I always remember our core group of friends' parents would pass around a key-collection plate — "this is a safe environment to have a little bit of fun in" — the only time I ever remember a drunk peer driving home... he was then banned from all future private party invites. Sadly/predictably, he would later perish in a DUI, early 20s...
Damn, I miss the late 90s/aughts. Damn, I'm old (and fat, too; I "made it", somehow!)
One bug (possibly) that I found was that if the recorder is running in the background, the global record does start and stop, but nothing pops up to save the file. Will this be fixed in 1.0.2?
Oh wow, just tried it and youre right. This is a regression, pre-launch after you finished recording with the global hotkey, the icon in the dock would bounce and it would bring up the main window to start editing. Ill fix this in the next minor release
To the people defending the reduction in Google's DEI program, I want to tell you that you are missing the point.
For some reason, they think DEI means some unqualified woman or minority is taking the position over someone more qualified. That is not the case.
DEI was created because corporate leadership structures were "the good old boys club" where less qualified people were hired because they knew someone or were related to someone in the company over a more qualified candidate.
Still today, qualified job candidates do not get calls back because their name sounds foreign. [1, 2]
There are many reasons why qualified candidates cannot even get into the interview process.
In theory, I'm a proponent of DEI. But your description is every description: "People have bias when hiring." That's the easy part to explain. A clear summary of how the solution can be fair is never quite spelled out (either because it isn't fair, or because explaining it clearly and briefly is intractable). "The fair amount of each of type person" is impossible to define, so there's no way to fairly get us there.
I.e. we can demonstrate that the scale is unfair, but we can't measure exactly how. The results of the bias are apparent, but the bias itself is unobservable. But when we put a thumb on it, that's highly observable, and we know the thumb doesn't know exactly whom to prefer over whom. You can't possibly expect humans to not revolt against that.
More practically speaking: Yes, the loud assholes focus on unqualified people theoretically being hired, but even if you dismiss them, there are still a bunch of people who won't be able to ignore the fact that, while DEI will cause the best candidate to sometimes be hired when they otherwise wouldn't, it intuitively causes the still-qualified-but-not-as-qualified candidate to be hired at least as often. Additionally, being denied by human bias (unconscious bias, charitably) is less angering than being denied by policy.
Fun little site that I think most of us have seen before! This is the first time I noticed it has a chat feature from the web console, which I thought was a pretty cool feature and something I have not seen before!
In the book, "This Is How They Tell Me the World Ends: The Cyberweapons Arms Race" or "Pegasus: How a Spy in Your Pocket Threatens the End of Privacy, Dignity, and Democracy" (sorry, I read both recently), the author describes an incident where when she got back to her hotel room one night her door was open, the safe was open, and her laptop was laying there. She did cybersecurity reporting and wed how some governments abuse spyware to spy on their citizens.
I imagine the target audience for this type of security would be journalists and cybersecurity researchers whom governments might target. I'm sure other jobs could use this information to protect themselves better.
Large government agencies can afford to design systems that probably do not need these requirements, and they also probably wouldn't have any sensitive information on any unattended device.
It's a dense book, but I enjoyed it a lot. His newest book How the World Really Works: A Scientist's Guide to Our Past, Present and Future is also really good!
I was so frustrated by that book (bought it on recommendation here) that I couldn't finish it.
He has one premise I agree with, that we can't decarbonize as quickly or easily as some hope. He then bludgeons the reader to death with it. I get it, okay!
Worse, much worse, he is incredibly myopic. For someone professing love and faith in science, he strangely seems to firmly believe we'll be stuck at our current technological level forever, the "end of history" fallacy on a whole other level. Have some faith in scientists, would you?
Factually, I don't doubt he's correct. But his assumptions and innuendo come off so strongly it completely ruined the book for me.
I don't think so. I couldn't tell you the inventor of the transistor or the operating system but I'm familiar with Grace Hopper and Eda Lovelace. The important people in a field's history are more or less remembered for reasons that may be arbitrary like a catchy name or funny story.
