Can it? Maybe. It's not impossible; but it isn't practical and most ISPs limit their shenanigans to grabbing your unencrypted DNS requests.

Will it? Probably no; aside from the previously mentioned DNS redirections; they're not interested in most people's packets, only in how many they deliver.

Should you care? I won't tell you not to take precaution, but I do urge you to consider your threat model carefully and consider the tradeoffs. When Security & Privacy goes up, Convenience and Functionality WILL go down. Balance your needs. Don't put yourself in a state of Privacy fatigue.

Are there easy fixes? Maybe. I think a VPN or using Tor would solve your concerns here anyways; it's not required that your modem be running OSS that you can control. If you can achieve it; that's still good for you; but it's not something to be sweating if your modem isn't capable and your invasive ISP is the only effective option.

In general I think using AI imagery, and catfishing in general, is basically entrapment. In most civilized countries; that's illegal for police to do.

Now if they begin to actually trade in actually legitimate forbidden materials...sure; by all means arrest for that charge alone. That wouldn't be unjustified. But provoking someone who might then turn around and harm a real child, seems wrong.

As I stated before; 5% is not significant enough. It won't ensure the victory; it might barely even turn the tide. Depends on how Trump does.

In some states; that's even within a margin of error, and might be close enough to cause certain states to enter run-offs...because we know the GOP is a bunch of sore losers.

I'm not accounting for State laws; which may in fact be stricter. I'm talking about Federal Laws which might not explicitly forbid such things; so long as they're done in an actually safe manner by professionals.

But, as I said before, if the DEA believes it has the power to stop that none-the-less; that's what they will do, without respect to if the law is actually legally unclear or borderline. Unfortunately many pharmaceutical places don't care to invite the wrath of the DEA; even if what they're doing could be considered permissible; so long as they do not synthesize an exact drug that the Feds specifically name as a controlled substance.

Again; IANAL either. But I do think there's a lot of room for small compounding pharmacies to synthesize various drugs to meet a patient's needs quickly while waiting for proper shipments to arrive. There's lots of compounds that are life-sustaining that do not fall under the DEA banner of authority.

I'll just leave this here.

https://youtu.be/9xn0OHEZZ8Q

If I'm going to be completely honest; I feel like these people in support of such a withdrawal of support (of Israel) are going to have to move the needle A LOT more than a mere 5% to get the attention they want.

Might be acceptable to get a little louder about your issue; and properly educate people about it.

Depending on how Vyvanse is Scheduled; it might be legal to privately make. If it's not scheduled like a standard amphetamine; the DEA is powerless.

I have a sneaking suspicion it's not illegal to compound this stuff. But IANAL; and it doesn't matter if the DEA thinks it is and will hassle anyone trying.

I firmly think this would be a boon for many people; owning one of these is likely a lifeline that even small town physicians could utilize to dispense drugs freely or cheaply to patients in need.

This is something that I think small-town pharmacies could use to create compounds in cases of drug shortages. I think tools and programs and small labs like what are discussed in the article are a positive force for good; and that they should be not only allowed, but encouraged, for many drugs that are expensive, unavailable to someone in need and can be readily synthesized safely with a basic college level of chemistry training by someone in a pharmacy.

I think the potential risks and downsides are small right now; and I think more of it should be encouraged gently so that we can find out quickly what the flaws and limitations are so that we can put regulatory guardrails around it so that people do not harm themselves.

The rot is deep. Avoiding it often requires you to become a hermit.

You try convincing your tech unsavvy friends to change services, your boss to let you use linux, and all your favorite communities not to use Discord, Google and YouTube. Last of all; good luck finding that one obscure widget you need right now to make something work without using Amazon.

I promise all of the above are harder than they sound. It shouldn't be harder; but it is.

While I wouldn't condone using an AI to create an entire novel, I would be fine with a human using ChatGPT to generate topics, prompts, and check spelling & grammar.

AI is a tool. It can be used for good, and it can be used for bad. Much like a hammer. There are both good and bad ways to use them.

There's no reason for there to be prohibition of AI generation; just prohibition of AI Generation being the only source of text.

It feels like this vulnerability isn't notable for the majority of users who don't typically include "Being compromised by a Nation-State-Level Actor."

That being said; I do hope they get it fixed; and it looks like there's already mitigations in place like protecting the authentication by another factor such as a PIN. That helps; for people who do have the rare threat model issue in play.

The complexity of the attack also seems clearly difficult to achieve in any time frame; and would require likely hundreds of man-hours of work to pull off.

If we assume they're funded enough to park a van of specialty equipment close enough to you; steal your key and clone it; then return it before you notice...nothing you can do can defend against them.

I think there's a problem with the 'C only' devs refusing to be accomodating to the Rust developers. Instead of being stubborn; why not provide them what is needed and help the Rust team learn how to maintain what is needed themselves?

None of the reasons I've seen mentioned are legitimate reasons for refusing to at least help them a few times, and helping them to learn how to do the onerous task themselves so they can keep it off the main plate for too long.

C devs do not need to learn Rust to provide critical information; they need only be present and cooperative with Rust devs to help them find, convert, and localize data structures for Rust use. They can stand to sit and pair code with their Rust Dev counterparts long enough to teach a Rust Dev counterpart how and what they need to look for in C code. It's not that big of an ask, and it's not something that really is a large ask. Provide the bindings for a short period of time, and work on training a team of Rust Devs to maintain the bindings.

That way both sides are stepping up to meet the others and the data isn't being sat on by the C-only Devs.