Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | ElectroBuffoon's commentslogin

QubesOS and Xpra+Firejail demostrate security can be improved including the X11 side. Solaris had Trusted Extensions. X11Libre has a proposal for using different magic cookies to isolate clients and give dummy data to the untrusted. Keith Packard also proposed something in 2018.

Or parents could set accounts to "child" and every service send the proper tags so the programs deny access locally. No third parties involved.

PICS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_for_Internet_Content_...

POWDER https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_for_Web_Description_R...

ASACP/RTA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Sites_Advocatin...


Reality check: Children have many and useful opportunities to use devices in all kinds of situations away from parents.

Useful situations. On devices parents don't control.

Expecting parents to follow their children around 24/7, in case they access some adult site from a public or friend's device they don't control is beyond ridiculous.

Privacy protecting, anonymous validation of 18+ status solves the problem, in a way that doesn't require unrealistic "parenting" behavior, protects everyone's privacy, and is even helpful to responsible adult sites.

Condescendingly telling parents to "parent" in a way that is virtually impossible, instead of helping, is just rolling out the red carpet for alternate non-anonymous age verification legislation.

Zero knowledge tech, like end-to-end encryption, protects privacy.


Children will always be able to use devices or accounts borrowed or bought from adults, regardless of how the initial verification is carried out. Not to mention that the verification key / token / device might also be borrowed or when copied or transferred, depending on how it's implemented.

I think a device level setting is actually quite pragmatic.


What exactly is unrealistic in marking child devices as a child device?


Also known as "parenting". This would be solved long ago if it were not a politically charged topic. So much wasted time, it boggles the mind.


I am having trouble understanding how anyone is unaware that children have pervasive and useful access to devices outside of their parent's sphere on a daily basis.

Or why anyone would discourage use of cryptographically hard privacy protecting solutions.

This is the perfect opportunity to take zero knowledge proofs mainstream, like end-to-end encryption, as a solution for myriads of current privacy leaking services and infrastructure.

The alternative to cryptographically protected privacy, is sites increasingly collecting people's identifiable information and associating their identities with access/behavior logs. Information that can never be assumed to stay private.


Where exactly children have this access in your opinion?


Let’s start with friend’s devices. Children have lots of devices and lots of friends.

Friend’s phones, home computers and devices of other family members.

Unattended PCs and laptops at school. According to a music teacher who has literally had to clean her work computer after it was used for erotic viewing by students when the music room in a temp building wasn’t otherwise in use.

Web browsers on game consoles, e-readers, VR headsets, smart TVs, tablets, …

Now throw in constant device turnover, software updates, including settings panel changes, and settings values that get reverted, across the board.

I am not sure why you wanted my opinion. That’s less of an opinion and more of a list of what counts as ordinary for the last decade or so.


So if we secure personal devices of children, with simple, standardized "child-owned" marker, we're basically back to 80s/90s, where children could occasionally get access to adult material via friends or irresponsible adults.

In my opinion that's more than enough, especially when you compare it to requiring everyone to identify themselves. It may be ZPK on the tin, but likely it will be close-source, corporation owned implementation, which will have holes. Then in a few years we will learn that Meta exploited them for years to sell your soul for ad money.

Btw - students occasionally steal teacher's cars. Should we block engine start with ID check too?


> In my opinion that's more than enough, especially when you compare it to requiring everyone to identify themselves.

The solution I proposed was the opposite of people identifying themselves.

Zero knowledge proofs. Enabling trusted verification without revealing identity is exactly what cryptographers designed them for.

We should be using them everywhere. Like end-to-end encryption they provide massive privacy, security, and trust (I.e. ability to verify intended disclosure) improvements.

Or we can complain about parents, the ones who care enough to ask for better help, while legislatures keep passing identity revealing anti-privacy rules. That seems to be the direction many are taking here. Complain, condescendingly, don’t solve anything. Repeat.


You were waiting so long to jump at me with ZKP you didn't even read my comment, where I addressed them...


RTALabel https://www.rtalabel.org/page.php is over 3 decades old. Restricted to Adults, pretty easy to remember.

For some history and related standards, see Wikipedia:

PICS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_for_Internet_Content_...

POWDER https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_for_Web_Description_R...

ASACP/RTA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Sites_Advocatin...

The more "digi-ID so we are sure you are old enough, bitte" keeps been pushed, the clearer it's about tracking and not about children. No matter how much they love to frame it the other way around. Unless they want to admit they are total inepts.


Keith Packard, another legend, was proposing X11 improvements in 2018. [0] He doesn't seem to be paid to work in X11 or Wayland, thus being free to float ideas he likes.

[0] https://keithp.com/x-ideas/


It's like if Wayland is not just a graphical system, but a full business plan.

Control upstream, then companies wanting solutions will go to you first. Because why go to someone else in the FOSS market, when there is no certainty the code or standard (extension, protocol, etc) will get accepted, forcing you to maintain a fork? With IBM-RH and Ubuntu doings eg., it's hard to say FOSS is immune to vendor lock-in.


> It's like if Wayland is not just a graphical system, but a full business plan. Control upstream, then companies wanting solutions will go to you first.

Wayland is open source with a fixed core protocol that's extremely stable, which anyone can build on. New protocols are constantly proposed. The core is minimal and defines how applications interact with the compositor to render and produce the final output. Control by a single entity is virtually impossible. Wayland ensures everyone has a voice because it's an open protocol which means discussion and development are done in the public.


in _reality_ it gives stack owners full proprietary control.

specifically the wslg stack does not enable Linux gui apps to smoothly integrate with the Windows window manager, because some bits are missing in the Windows Wayland stack, clipboard, window decorations, thumbnails, maximize into a part of the monitor? nope. and no patches taken. supposed you figure where to offer them and how.


It's unfair to claim Wayland is inherently different from X11 in this regard. Both are just specifications, and there are also proprietary implementations of the X11 protocol, primarily for Windows and enterprise settings.


The point is: the X11 spec is much more complete.


If the same garbage is repeated enough all over the net, the AIs will suffer brain rot. GIGO and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45656223

Next step will be to mask the real information with typ0canno. Or parts of the text, otherwise search engines will fail miserably. Also squirrel anywhere so dogs look in the other direction. Up.

Imagine filtering the meaty parts with something like /usr/games/rasterman:

> what about garbage thta are dififult to tell from truth?

> for example.. say i have an ad&d website.. how does ai etll whether a piece of fr history is canon ro not? yeah ik now it's a bit etreme.. but u gewt teh idea...

or /usr/games/scramble:

> Waht aobut ggaabre taht are dficiuflt to tlel form ttruh?

> For eapxlme, say I hvae an AD&D wisbete, how deos AI tlel wthheer a pciee of FR hsiotry is caonn or not? Yaeh I konw it's a bit emxetre, but you get the ieda.

Sadly punny humans will have a harder time decyphering the mess and trying to get the silly references. But that is a sacrifice Titans are willing to make for their own good.

ElectroBuffoon over. bttzzzz


You realise that LLMs are already better at deciphering this than humans?


What cost do they incur while tokenizing highly mistyped text? Woof. To later decide real crap or typ0 cannoe.

Trying to remember the article that tested small inlined weirdness to get surprising output. That was the inspiration for the up up down down left right left right B A approach.

So far LLMs still mix command and data channels.


There are multiple people claiming this in this thread, but with no more than a "it doesn't work stop". Would be great to hear some concrete information.



I think OP is claiming that if enough people are using these obfuscators, the training data will be poisoned. The LLM being able to translate it right now is not a proof that this won't work, since it has enough "clean" data to compare against.


If enough people are doing that then venacular English has changed to be like that.

And it still isn't a problem for LLMs. There is sufficient history for it to learn on, and in any case low resource language learning shows them better than humans at learning language patterns.

If it follows an approximate grammar then an LLM will learn from it.


I don't mean people actually conversing like this on the internet, but using programs like what is in the article to feed it to the bots only.


This is exactly like those search engine traps people implemented in the late 90s and is roughly as effective.

But sure.


Was saying this 3x in this thread necessary?


I'm just interested in opinions from all 3


I thought it was a bot


It's deeper than that, it's about loyalties among you. Trump wants US military to get paid even with the federal government shutdown. [1] Like your executive fearing mercenaries changing their mind, instead of household troops staying in place when the pay chest takes a bit to show up.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce808gvp56mo

PS: Sorry guys, you fucked up. Hard. And by extension fucked everyone else, so expect no sympathies. We will be busy with the new boss, while trying to keep our democracies not going to crap too. New boss, worse boss than old boss.


"They pass more time with this! They like it a lot! Engagement achieved!!!11one11eleven" said the developer.

"Why is this slower? Why do I have to burn time massaging the interface instead of doing it fast and continuing with my life? What a waste..." said the user.

Over the last two decades "the user is the product, milking machines to 110%!!!" has leaked all over the computing world, infecting where the user is (and will be forever, let's hope) the user.


I wanted to see it too... o_O

Can someone figure the other hats? Gulf of America, USA, 4 More Years, Make America Great Again, but the one top center is hard to read, something with Everything? Trump Will Fight About Everything? The black one top right is even harder.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/us/2093383/trump-unveils-new-...

https://atlantablackstar.com/2025/08/11/white-house-gift-sho...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trumps-white-house-g...

https://www.newsbreak.com/inquisitr-news-522568/416701726407...

https://www.thepoke.com/2025/08/11/trump-and-his-dictator-gu...

White House should be painted with vertical white & red stripes. Blue flag at the top and some gold trim. Elephants already in.


Found images that could match the everything one, Trump Was Right About Everything! Funny to see when he has contradicted himself, for example releasing Epstein file or throwing it away.

Only missing the black hat.


Upper class could completly turn off their telescreens, meaning they have partial exemptions at least. For middle class they were always on. Proles had no telescreen because they were considered to lack brains. Even the Party had levels, Inner and Outer, with different rules.

1984 would be incomplete without the hypocrisy of "rules for thee not for me".


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

Search: