Most portable electronics today use some variation of lithium ion batteries, which when it becomes unstable can combust/explode if mishandled. However, devices generally have thermal management software and hardware, as well as multitude of other safety mechanisms like power management systems to handle charge regulation. Unless you intentionally puncture your batteries, they’re not likely to cause any problems on their own.
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off the impression that OP just want to leverage the headline to strike emotion and reinforce peoples’ believes on outdated information.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.
You don’t always have a choice as it is dictated by the service provider, but whenever possible, disable SMS based MFA and enable TOTP or something else. SMS based MFA is susceptible to SS7 MitM attack.
Linguistic question: is it misogyny if it originates from women? Reason for asking is because I genuinely don’t know if it is like racism against own race kind of situation, and the article appears to have been written by two women.
Edit: lol Lemmy showing their true colors. Would rather dodge and avoid the hard questions, downvote and continue to circle jerk themselves about anti-AI. Love it. Keep it up Lemmy!
Sure. But the capacitors in the devices do make a pop and the fragments/shrapnels from the damaged devices depart from their physical location at pace that I would not be comfortable with.
If I’m dealing with a spicy pillow situation, the technical definitions as to whether or not something counts as an explosion is the last of my concern.