It could probably run the code for doom, once recompiled for the risc-v emulator, but given that the only output is a paper teletype, displaying it would be a problem
> They hosted a program that allowed minecraft clients to connect...
Connect in the sense of receiving a login packet and saying "yes". That's it. Steps 1, 2, 3, 9, 10 of [0] (they didn't mention encryption or compression, I'm assuming they didn't implement it.)
They didn't mention anything about any of the steps past 10 - again, assuming they didn't implement them.
It's a trivial thing they've implemented - good work, sure, but a Minecraft server? Absolutely not.
I still don't think I've seen an actually useful application for a Flipper Zero. It's all just "use this to change store price tags" or "here's how to disconnect all bluetooth devices", but also "don't actually use this, because it would be illegal, this is just for educational purposes"
Beside of how the media often tries to present it, the value of Flipper Zero is not for everyone to "become a hacker with this simple app".
Its value is to provide a standardized hardware platform for (white hat) hackers for probing, prototyping, refining and sharing of security research in the fields its hardware supports (Sub-GHz RF, NFC, IR, and custom external boards via simple Input/Output pins).
Prior to that, everyone who wanted to research e.g. RF security had to either build/assemble something custom or buy much more expensive equipment. This created a barrier to collaborate on research, as everyone had to buy/build the same setup.
On top of that, Person A researching some RF topic selected an RF-transceiver from Company X, Person B used a component and a proprietary SDK of Company Y, so consolidating both work streams for a better foundation for all RF-related research required alot of time and effort from someone, breaking workflows of at least one group of researchers, etc.
In contrast, security research which utilizes Flipper Zero can be reproduced and built upon by everyone. All the work is harmonized on the same Hardware architecture, so it's easy for someone familiar with the platform to dive straight into a new idea without having to build a new breadboard, select a chipset, buy additional probing equipment etc.
There is much better hardware available to security researchers (chameleons, hackrf, and actually research-grade (much more expensive) equipment).
The flipper is basically an Arduino pre built with a bunch of static antennas. It's fine and in a decent form factor, but I really haven't found it useful.
Do you have any links to actual research (not children playing "researcher") done with flipper hardware?
Flipper zero themselves try to present the flipper zero as a device that "hacks things with a button press".
And they love the free advertising they get along the same lines by youtubers desperate for clicks.
Ultimately it just sells more devices. The flipper zero can't "hack" anything. It can only be used as a tool to perform hacking, by a skilled individual who is doing all the work/discovering an exploit.
> The flipper zero can't "hack" anything. It can only be used as a tool to perform hacking, by a skilled individual who is doing all the work/discovering an exploit.
Would be pretty rad to see what happens I suppose.
Same goes for other tools. If Mythos can find vulnerabilities (through smarts or just extensive combinatorial testing who knows) what's to say it can't help find physical vulnerabilities as well.
I'm tired of the "security research" angle when it's all just kids playing with ESP32 deauther attacks presented to them on a silver platter.
I should not have to put up with children going "JUST SECURE YOUR NETWORKS BRO" because they spent $30 on some eBay "maurauder" dongle to be a pissant.
It's probably good to have kids with no big plans messing with your security now and then. Keeps you on your toes, and you can't really pass it off as an act of god if a teenager pwns you.
And a minority of those kids will get curious about the How and Why. Those are the security nerds of the future securing the networks against both the kids they were themselves and actual malicious actors.
Source: Early interest in wifi security, including in other people's networks, lead me down an education and career in security
I sure wish I was wealthy and had a fistful of RSUs. You wanna send me some? I make 5% over my area's 80% median income and I can't even get housing because I "make too much money" despite being $3000 too rich.
I'm pretty tired of being the network guy in the field playing remote hands having to be on the front lines of all of this bullshit having to explain to decision makers that a bunch of shitty kids are running around and there's no real solution that we can just "fix" this with.
I'm tired. If they're not deauthing our networks they're breaking into rooms with the goddamn card copying and fuzzing functionality and stealing shit.
I apologize. My response was a flippant attempt at humor and I didn't mean to personalize that at you. I have had those days where I had to clean up the mess left behind by a merry prankster. They aren't fun days.
Sometimes the deviant act will get a nod of appreciation from me, but not if an AI did all the heavy lifting. I keep a labor-of-love website up and am increasingly swatting away scrapers in an attempt not to get slammed with a bankruptcy-tier cloud bill.
I use mine for all sorts. I volunteer at a second-hand shop so use it to set up remotes for donated media devices, I've used it to run scripts to apply the same changes to many computers that aren't on a group policy via BadUSB, I've used it for toys-to-life games, and very much more. There are plenty of genuine uses if you're cluey.
This one provides the source and asks you to build it yourself so at least it has some credibility for the "education use only" claim.
I've seen similar things posted on here before that had a binary build only and zero technical documentation. It was really hard to see any kind of research or education value in those.
This right here would be useful once these price tag things start being thrown away. Times change and systems get updated and if you keep your eye out you’ll likely be able to get a handful cheap.
I use mine as a presentation remote, and as a USB interface for some micro controllers. Sure, I could buy a dedicated remote, or a bus pirate or other programming device, but I already have the flipper, so it suits me fine
It’s been very useful to me in so many ways, from fob management, to one IR, to rf scanner and other stuff, it’s useful if it fits your needs, just like anything else out there.
Something has gone screwy with the timestamps on this page... They're saying they were posted "in 8 hours", "in a day", then the last one is "an hour ago"
It's still showing a time in the future, which only makes sense if there is some kind of error with the server time or some kind of weird timezone conversion gone wrong
How about you take it even further and implement "Rawdog Weeks", where every day for the week you write code without the assistance of LLMs, and you repeat that every week. That way you won't be able to develop any kind of dependance
I'm taking the radical approach of starting with the problem and finding a solution rather than start with a solution and hit all your problems with it.
Did people forget that practice makes perfect? The best way for someone to level up is to go get their hands dirty and dive into everything themselves.
One of my math teachers said that practice doesn't make perfect. Practice makes permanent. You can practice and reinforce the wrong thing until that's all you know.
I have very conflicted feelings about this sort of thing. On the one hand, Down's syndrome can make life very hard, for both the person with it, and their carers and the people around them. I can imagine that some people would have preferred it if they were able to "cure" it. I've often felt in the past that I would have preferred to have been born without autism and ADHD, and while I've been coping a little better with it nowadays, it definitely had a large impact on my childhood, and I know my parents struggled with it a lot.
On the other hand, this feels a bit like eugenics, and a slippery slope towards designer babies where you can pick and choose their attributes. I'm of the opinion that we should embrace the full diversity of human life, and if you can just cut out the parts of your children you don't like, that feels quite iffy to me
Not to downplay your situation, but this is Down's syndrome we're talking about, so a whole menagerie of both physical and mental conditions, including, but not limited to: higher risk of epilepsy and heart failure, aside from almost universal infertility in men.
It's a serious disability even today decreasing life expectancy by 10-15 years.
One may have different opinions regarding the quality of life of these people while they're alive, but I think we can agree that 60 years is a short lifespan for a human.
EDIT: also main point of eugenics, which seems to be not widely understood, was that the state would decide both what kind of children are born and who gets to have them. It was not unheard of to take sufficiently "aryan"-looking newborns from their "inferior race" parents and give them to "master race" adoptive parents.
This lack of agency on part of biological parents is a core tenet of eugenics.
We already live in a world where parents decide whether or not a child with Down Syndrome will be born.
60-90% of prenatal diagnoses in the US result in an elective termination. The number is nearly 100% in Iceland and some other Nordic countries. Unlike autism or ADHD, we have a very clear understanding of exactly what causes Down Syndrome and now potentially how to correct it. A treatment like this is no different from correcting a congenital heart defect - it gives a baby a chance at normal, healthy development.
Ok, that just leaves us with another quandary: deciding whether to terminate the pregnancy (hoping that the parents will get a "normal" child on the next try), or let the child be born and use this (no doubt very expensive) therapy to cure it? Not sure medical insurers would cover it? Maybe Christian anti-abortion groups will donate money for this therapy to parents who choose to have a child with Down syndrome? OTOH, they might consider that interfering with God's will to have an impaired child be born?
> it gives a baby a chance at normal, healthy development.
And a chance of not being killed in utero. Abortion for Down is sad, because despite cognitive impairment and health complications, their lifespans are long, and emotional development is quite spared by the syndrome. They can be very affectionate and sociable, despite the impairment. Abortion for them feels like death penalty for being dumb.
I don't think that this is about being "dumb", but rather about being able to support oneself.
Becoming a parent and taking on the responsibility to support a child financially and emotionally for 18 years as you gradually prepare them for independent life is already a massively difficult decision, particularly when looking at the worldwide decline in birth rates. Expecting people to knowingly and ahead of time take on responsibility for a child who most likely will never be able to support themselves and a raise their own family seems really unreasonable to me.
Ignore commenters trashing you. It is very ok to have conflicted feelings about something like this. I think this is a good thing but understand where you're coming from. Let me tell you my family's story.
I have a brother with developmental disabilities. Not Down Syndrome, but something similar. He (and I) were lucky enough to be born into an upper-middle class family where my brother went to a school where people were kind to him and where services were available. Despite everything going about as well as it could, it still is a major tax on my family. Constant fund-raising for the home he's living in. Major medical problems through out his life. Things like that. When I agreed to kids with my wife it was on the condition that we do genetic testing and abort the fetus if there was an issue.
My mother has invested her life into this child and loves him more than anything. One day we were talking about death and I casually said something along the lines of "as long as I don't see you at <brother's name> funeral" I'll be ok. Implying she should die first so she doesn't have to deal with the sadness of seeing him die. She then said that she wanted my brother to die first. I was stunned. I asked why. She said she wanted to know he was taken care of. It completely floored me. People with Down's (and similar disabilities) can bring so much joy into this world. They can live very happy lives. I understand how it can be hard for people who don't have my experience to feel like you're feeling. However, I wouldn't wish it on anyone. And I think it's a good thing for society to stop babies being born that are so disabled they'll never be able to take care of themselves.
Not to downplay, but is it wrong to assume you're self sufficient in daily life? Work a job and pay your bills?
You list your site and have a seemingly lots of professional experience.
Some of these conditions do make life harder, but there's a big difference between high functioning Autism and disabilities that make someone 100% dependent on others.
It's so odd to me that we haven't come up with a term for high functioning autism to separate from low functioning. It's ridiculous to me that a commenter with this background can superficially claim to be suffering from the same disability as a family member I have who has required a caretaker to not die and would probably be totally uninterested or unable to even give an opinion on a complex subject like this.
I cannot recall why Asperger's as a term was dropped or deemed controversial, but this is the equivalent of stolen valor but for mental illness especially when used to justify an argument.
How is it any different than people with obsessive compulsive tendencies claiming they have OCD? There's a huge difference.
> "It's so odd to me that we haven't come up with a term for high functioning autism to separate from low functioning."
If you are interested to learn, autistic people are typically assigned a level of support needs on a scale of 1 to 3. Most people who would once have received a diagnosis of Aspergers now receive the "level 1" designation. Based on your description, your family member is likely "level 3", possibly with comorbidities? I was assigned "level 2".
> "I cannot recall why Asperger's as a term was dropped or deemed controversial"
It was dropped because a number of labels, now all considered to be ASD, were discovered to be different presentations of the same underlying disorder. The divisions break down under scrutiny and the apparent modal jumps disappear when you control for comorbidities and the ability to mask.
> "How is it any different than people with obsessive compulsive tendencies claiming they have OCD? There's a huge difference."
I'm not the other poster, but I'm a different autistic adult to whom your complaints might apply. To answer this question, the difference is that I call myself an autist because I have been diagnosed as autistic, due to meeting the diagnostic criteria of autism.
> "this is the equivalent of stolen valor"
Please go to the equivalent of hell.
Disabled people are allowed to call ourselves by the correct labels without apologising that our suffering is less severe or less obvious than someone else sharing the same label.
> Disabled people are allowed to call ourselves by the correct labels without apologising that our suffering is less severe or less obvious than someone else sharing the same label.
I think you guys are perhaps talking past each other.
The fact you acknowledge and recognise 'less severe' (a significant understatement when comparing ASD to Downs) suggests that you do understand parent's point.
Parent, I also note, was not seeking or implying an apology was sought from people with less severe genetic conditions. Rather, that the implications on QoL, lifespan, social / familial imposition etc of Downs, is nothing at all like so called high-functioning ASD.
The parent comment was specifically and exclusively talking about autism, not Down's syndrome. I'm addressing their claim that it is "ridiculous" for an autistic person to "claim" to be autistic when other autistic people have worse outcomes.
I'm not interested in litigating the fairly obvious point that Down's syndrome is a much worse prognosis than ASD, and the comment to which I responded says nothing about it either.
Dr. Asperger may or may not have been sorting autistic children into high- and low-functioning groups so that the higher group (with “Asperger’s”) could go on to become good Nazis and the lower group could be euthanized.
Perhaps including milder forms of autism under the term was a useful way to reduce funding for the intensive care and therapy required by those with more severe forms (e.g. the nonverbal), since we can now frame these things as “changing who they are” etc. and not, in fact, necessary.
Many children who primarily have intellectual disabilities will be categorized under the "Autism Spectrum" because funding has been applied for "Autism", and not "vague learning disability". If the doctor checks the Autism box, it opens a huge swath of support networks in certain states.
I don't blame anyone for lumping their kid in. I think it's more of a massive failure for social funding that hyper-categorizes due to means-testing.
But the moral conundrum here is that they can't choose untill well after they're born, meaning the parents are the ones that need to make the decision.
This is one of those situations where the child will likely never get the choice, for the same reasons we don’t require informed consent for being born or getting your diaper changed.
I would to add onto what others have said by mentioning that omission is still a decision. Even if the parents didn't explicitly choose, the inaction comes with dire consequences towards the child, whose parents are responsible (and held accountable) for taking care of.
I understand the concerns, but some things just make life much harder. I would definitely want to spare my child from living with autism, ADHD and certainly Down syndrome, given the choice. It's not like we're talking about choosing eye color, height or gender here.
You got to weigh this against abortions for unborn children diagnosed (maybe even wrongly, the tests are really not that exact) with Down's syndrome. The slippery slope already began a long time ago probably.
By week 20 there is practically no chance you're not going to know if you're carrying a baby with downs or not unless you refuse all the modern screening/tests available.
NIPT tests can be done at week 8 and give a very high indicator that can be followed up with close monitoring/invasive tests at week 14-15 that give a 99% accuracy. That's hardly "are really not that exact".
Per Wikipedia, Down's syndrome currently occurs in ~1 in 1000 live births, and used to occur in 2 in 1000 live births some decades ago, in the USA. That means that a test with a 1% false positive rate (99% accuracy) will lead to a false positive for 98-99 healthy embryos per 1000 live births. I would say that this is fair to call "not all that accurate".
Note: I am not in anyway saying that this means that people shouldn't trust the tests, or anything like that. Just reminding everyone that a test's accuracy has to be compared to the incidence of the disease to decide if it's high or not.
Screening ‘test’ vs diagnostic ‘test’ is an important concept.
Screening tests are designed for sensitivity — false positives are expected and identify who would benefit from additional diagnostic tool and procedures.
Of course gene editing has the potential to go very wrong, and will almost certainly go very wrong. But trisomy 31 is a well defined genetic defect with heavy consequences on the person having it and his or her entourage and there is no ethics preventing to correct the issue even if the technology used can be also used for nefarious means. It would be like not using dynamite for freeing miners in a collapsing mine because in the future there will be bombs made from dynamite targeting children.
What would be the difference between curing a fetus versus a newborn? Isn't editing out the bad gene better than just aborting gestation? For the person gestating too, since going through an abortion is psychologically damaging
Natural Selection might as well be called Natural Eugenics.
I have people in my family with Downs. It made the early pregnancies for every one of my children a terrifying ordeal. Luckily my children were all born perfectly healthy.
I love my family members with it, but their lives have been so much more difficult than they needed to be. It’s not just massively difficult for the disabled, it financially ruined their parents and their care is also a massive tax burden on the community.
If we can eliminate a crippling disease by “just” turning off a gene we should absolutely do it. The alternative is aborting them as soon as it is detected, and even then it isn’t always caught in-utero.
I have worked with people will all sorts of disabilities my entire life. I can confidently say that if I asked any of my blind or deaf colleagues that if they could take a simple gene therapy so they could see/hear again that they would do it without hesitation. Why would Down Syndrome be any different?
I can’t think of a single valid argument against it other than “eugenics bad”. We aren’t talking about Nazi-era human experimentation here.
As I said in another comment, eugenics is state authoritarian control of reproduction and fertility (with the extreme version being genocide).
There are very few people with a disability who wouldn’t want it to have been prevented or cured. “A healthy man has many dreams. A sick man has only one.”
> On the other hand, this feels a bit like eugenics, and a slippery slope towards designer babies where you can pick and choose their attributes.
We can discuss pros and cons of freedom of choice of genetics for your children (an opposite spin on the same idea as calling it "designer babies"), but eugenics is a thought-terminating cliche at this point. There's whole space of useful genetics-based treatments and interventions that do not imply involuntary sterilization of people one group deems lesser.
The best thing to do with the term eugenics is to define it specifically as authoritarian control of reproduction.
Voluntary acts aren’t eugenics, otherwise you get absurd things like free choice of mates being eugenics because you are choosing, or any medical treatment being eugenics if it touches genetics or reproduction. Eugenics should be defined as meaning only authoritarian (directly or via state backed “social engineering”) forms.
While I agree with you that it's a thought-terminating cliche, I would caution that humans have historically been very inaccurate with knowing what traits specifically are good vs. bad, while also very strong on enforcement of ingroup/outgroup and purity dynamics.
We could all be hyper-muscular (from that Myostatin gene) and have tetra-chromatic vision*, but that leads to the joke about how "in the future there will be three genders: kpop, furry, and tank", where kpop represents normative beauty standards, furry represents self-expression, and tank represents hyper-optimising for niche goals like being strong.
On the more near-term impacts, before we're ready for me to get turned into an anthro-wolf, if we all end up with our genomes subject to regular updates like our software currently is, some of us are inevitably going to face our cells getting bricked while we're still made of them.
I've always thought we should maintain a list of people like you. Every time we cure something, like blindness in one person, one of you gets picked and your eyes get poked out. That way the total amount of suffering will be conserved, but those who think that's necessary get to be the ones who pay the price for their beliefs.
In the first half of my comment, I explained that I don't think people should suffer. I'm just also aware that if everyone can pick their child's attributes, it could lead to a nation of blond-hair, blue-eyes kids
No it wouldn't. If these traits were everywhere, then they would no longer be exclusive and therefore would lose their appeal. There is nothing inherently "hot" or "attractive" about blond hair or blue eyes.
I'm sorry but if elimination of crippling disease sounds like eugenics to you, then you should deeply think about your moral compass. Comparing autism (I guess some mild form since you put it next to ADHD) and ADHD to Down's syndrome shows that you are completely clueless. I'm sorry for the harsh tone but your comment is absolutely awful and has zero empathy towards people (and their caretakers) suffering from condition much worse than what you are going through.
For where this gets complex, you can look at the Deaf community.
Crippling disease? Or normal variation in humanity? There's significant debate, and a lot of Deaf people really bristle at the idea of eliminating their identity.
