I kept getting “business proposals” and “invoices” by email that looked a bit too shady to open. Most of them were PDFs, which as many of you know can hide embedded scripts, phishing links, or even malware.
I wanted a way to safely see what’s inside those files without actually opening them on my own computer. I couldn’t find any service that did exactly that, so I built one: Seguradoc.
It opens PDFs inside a sandbox, generates image snapshots of each page, and uses Mistral AI to run OCR and produce short summaries of image-based scanned PDFs. It also checks any detected links or QR codes against URLhaus for known phishing or malware sources.
This comes from a real problem I had, as some of these PDFs were actually malicious containing phishing attempts. These are directed and personalised attacks.
Of course your browser sandboxes these PDF files but I'd prefer not opening these files at all in my computer - being sandboxed by the browser or just using MacOS preview.
My girlfriend also got banned from advertising on Meta for literally no reason. It’s been also a year since she last advertised her Facebook page (she’s a gerontologist).
They are probably banning most smaller advertisers and sticking with the largest ones.
Could the increased brightness of these screens help worsening the burn in problem?
I’d say the firmware has precautions against this problem. Could it be only a small number of phones with defective panels presenting this problems and people blowing it out of proportion?
For sure this was due to some bug in the software, since must be some exchange creating the transactions manually and for some reason the change address was not set so the blockchain assumed the remaining was all blockchain fees (just a supposition).
Also, imagine having so much time to spare you create an entire website to hate on Web3.
Because they can't track it. Without total control of every aspect of your life they can't make sure you're a Good Person (TM). What if we let the Bad Guys (R) do whatever they want? Won't you think of the children? You wouldn't want children hurt would you? The irony of all this is the people that want sex workers, minorities, and other marginalized communities to live without fear also vote for these policies to keep their Bad Guy (R) under their thumb.
For me the question is highly debatable. As far as I'm aware the training of AI works by crawling various content from the Internet, so they're using a product, which are NY articles to train an AI, meaning they're using their content to help creating a product.
But in this sense, shouldn't they be suing Google as well? Since Google as a search engine, also crawls the web and shows their articles in their search results, usually it may even use them for those quick answers features.
My 5 cents on this are that NY Times noticed OpenAI has deep pockets, they may have ground to sue and decides to try their look in order to get some quick easy money. Now, I don't know if what OpenAI is doing with ChatGPT does not fall under fair use.
News organizations in other jurisdictions already have achieved settlements with Google (which has much deeper pockets than OpenAI)
But there's a fairly obvious difference in use between using content to index it and point to it and generate revenue for it and using content to generate alternative content...
In the case of Google, merely indexing content is not considered fair use.
It's a double edged sword, as media outlets have realized, after all Google is responsible for a larger part of the success of these publications.
But in Germany for example, Google News basicially just copypasted articles into their service, and monetizing it without involving the publishers. That doesn't qualify as transformative even under their own rules (see the YouTube TOS and copyright enforcement system).
The trend with Google and other search engines over the past ten years has been for them to incorporate more and more content on their own pages. It's hard to remember that not so long ago Google search results pages were just lists of web pages bereft of any other content.
Today, if you Google for a song lyric, that lyric appears in Google. You get a tiny grey source link to Musixmatch or whatever but why would anyone bother to go there if you have the complete lyric right there on the page you are looking at?
More and more content real estate has appeared on search engines' pages. Answer boxes answering questions, again with a source link few people will use, and of course the large Knowledge Graph panel filled with Wikipedia content (written by volunteers and monetised by the world's richest tech companies).
The result is that it's tech companies and their platforms that make most of the money off content (YouTube is another example). They are the oil companies of today, and like the latter use all sorts of lobbying to make sure things are organised to their advantage.
For all the ingenuity and usability they offer, they behave at least in part like parasites. They should be forced to spread the wealth round a bit more.
How does your argument relate to the one of the previous posters? Two rights don't make a wrong, nevermind that some of these sites do actually buy the rights to display the lyrics off of artists songs.
That depends under whose jurisdiction you're talking about, how it's commercialised, how closely the content resembles the original content or whether it incorporates trademarks etc etc.
> But in this sense, shouldn't they be suing Google as well? Since Google as a search engine, also crawls the web and shows their articles in their search results, usually it may even use them for those quick answers features.
I wanted a way to safely see what’s inside those files without actually opening them on my own computer. I couldn’t find any service that did exactly that, so I built one: Seguradoc.
It opens PDFs inside a sandbox, generates image snapshots of each page, and uses Mistral AI to run OCR and produce short summaries of image-based scanned PDFs. It also checks any detected links or QR codes against URLhaus for known phishing or malware sources.
This comes from a real problem I had, as some of these PDFs were actually malicious containing phishing attempts. These are directed and personalised attacks.
Of course your browser sandboxes these PDF files but I'd prefer not opening these files at all in my computer - being sandboxed by the browser or just using MacOS preview.
Let me know your feedback regarding this tool.