I did in fact read the paper before my reply. I’d recommend considering the participants pool — this is a very common problem in most academic research, but is very relevant given the argument you’re claiming — with vast majority of the participants being students (over 60% if memory serves; I’m on mobile currently and can’t go back to read easily) and most of which being undergraduate students with very limited exposure to actual dev work. They are then prompted to, quite literally as the first question, produce code for asymmetrical encryption and deception.

Seasoned developers know not to implement their own encryption because it is a very challenging space; this is similar to polling undergraduate students to conduct brain surgery and expect them to know what to look for.

Completely agree with you on the news vs science aspect. At the same time, it is worth considering that not all science researches are evergreen… I know this all too well; as a UX researcher in the late 2000s / early 2010s studying mobile UX/UI, most of the stuff our lab has done was basically irrelevant the year after they were published. Yet, the lab preserved and continues to conduct studies and add incremental knowledge to the field. At the pace generative AI/LLMs are progressing, studies against commercially available models in 2023 is largely irrelevant in the space we are in, and while updated studies are still important, I feel older articles doesn’t shine an appropriate light on the subject in this context.

A lot of words to say that despite the linked article being a scientific research, since the article is dropped here without context nor any leading discussion, it leans more towards the news spectrum, and gives off the impression that OP just want to leverage the headline to strike emotion and reinforce peoples’ believes on outdated information.

While I agree “they should be doing these studies continuously” point of view, I think the bigger red flag here is that with the advancements of AI, a study published in 2023 (meaning the experiment was done much earlier) is deeply irrelevant today in late 2024. It feels misleading and disingenuous to be sharing this today.

If anyone is responsible to keep things around for 100+ years, they’d have a job to do… and even then, cloud providers will still make their life significantly easier than juggling a bunch of storage mediums that goes in and out of storage medium fashion.

You’ll be very hard pressed to find anything else that’d out last the day when all three of AWS, Azure and GCP shutdown and take their data offline.

I get it though, Lemmy doesn’t want to admit these services exist other than to dunk on them in the most anti-corporate fashion… so continue to pretend such is the case!

Another possibility: the console vendors are catching whiff of the whole gate keeper mess, and they don’t want to be at risk of being forced to open up their physical cartridge DRM mechanisms to allow third party cartridges for the relatively small EU market (compared to the rest of the world). Moving towards digital is much easier as result.

It is also clear as day that they’re testing the waters with Nintendo players who are generally deemed to be more casual, and lesser likely to push back compared to the more savvy other major consoles. Once this blows over, they will just move to digital everything across the board, citing successes and cost savings on the other platforms as basis for the move.

Upload it to the cloud and make it someone else’s problem to deal with keeping up with the physical medium changes. Then your descendants only have to worry about figuring out how to deal with an outdated file format they can no longer open… and even when they can finally open it, it’d be super low quality… just like how we have to squint really hard at videos from VCDs now days.

API are secure only if you can secure the authentication details. A modified app (be it as something modified and distributed on a unsanctioned channel, or custom injected by another malicious actor/app) can easily siphon out your authentication tokens to a third party unbeknownst to you the user. However, if the app verifies it came from the approved source and have not been tempered with, then it is much easier to lean on ASLR and other OS level security to make it harder to extract the authentication info.

Multiplayer game operators have obligation to curb modified clients so their actual paying clients have a levelled playing field. By ensuring their apps are only distributed via approved channels and unmodified by malicious players, this improves their odds at warding off cheaters creating a bad time for those that actually pay them to play fairly.

These are just simple cases where this kind of security is beneficial. I am glad Android is finally catching up in this regard.

It was not an EU thing, it was a China thing.

It’s quite obvious as well looking back at it; if course China will mandate one of the weakest protocol with no end to end encryption.

Avoid RCS like the plague and use something more secure!

No, they’re mostly correct; basically no one except Android users in the USA cares. Everywhere else has it figured out with third party messaging platforms that’s geographically favored, and Apple users in USA will continue to use the superior iMessage protocol with each other. Only the Android users in USA are left out from sending/receiving messaging, so they’re salivating over the update like it’s the best thing since sliced bread.

RCS is janky, inconsistent, and carrier dependent. Can’t wait for Android users in the USA to join the better rest of the world. Until GSM consortium mandates end to end encryption and force all carriers to adopt certain version of consistent minimum, RCS is and will continue to be a garbage inferior protocol that should be avoided like the plague.