Getting the entire world to switch to something better would be quite the undertaking.
But that’s probably not necessary. You could install something on your phone that does phone number lookup and then just dials the number as normal. The service doesn’t need to be built into the old phone networks this way.
EDIT: Basically the immunity system doesn’t work like a muscle.
I think the immune system can be likened to a muscle if someone really wants to go with that metaphor, but only if you consider vaccines to be the gym and getting sick is uncontrollable and dangerous physical exertion. So, wanting to develop natural immunity is like wanting to get into street fights to build arm strength. It might kinda work, but you’ll also be in a lot of unnecessary danger.
Your encryption key can be stored encrypted in the cloud. This isn’t a fundamentally bad thing, but they should allow better protection than the short pins they allowed last time I checked.
Do you have access to Signal servers to verify your claims by any chance?
That’s not how it works. The signal protocol is designed in a way that the server can’t have access to your message contents if the client encrypts them properly. You’re supposed to assume the server might be compromised at any time. The parts you actually need to verify for safe communication are:
KDE and Hyprland have it already apparently, as well as the embedded gamescope session. It still needs to be implemented by apps/games as well, though. According to this mpv and games running on recent Proton versions have HDR support.
HDR means better contrast and colors if your monitor supports it.
The news in the OP specifically mean that the protocol is finalized, but you still have to wait for it to get implemented.
Are you contradicting yourself later by conceding (flawed as it may be) it fit “a very minimal definition of democracy”?
What part are you referring to? This?
So if you mean democracy in a very literal and minimal sense, that the people have some sort of power through their vote, that’s technically still going on.
Cause that not the same context. One is responding to the “100-years tradition of upkeeping democracy against major non-democratic players” claim and the other is talking about the USA political system as it exists right now. These are not just referring to different periods; but the former is not even asking whether democracy exists in the USA. It’s asking whether the US has a long tradition of fighting for democracy against its major enemies. That’s why I didn’t just mention just the lack of voting rights for minorities, but also stuff like violently interfering in other countries’ politics. The sentences seem inconsistent to you because you took out every bit of context.
Do good, objective definitions vary by time & culture? Seems problematic.
Yes they do vary. One could argue objective definitions don’t exist in the first place. It’s not problematic, it’s a good thing. If definitions didn’t vary by time, black people would still be slaves and women would not have the right to vote. It is our changing definition of who “the people” of a country are that changed the rights afforded to those people. And the fact that even the most fundamental words of the most minimal definition are not objective and unchanging is why you cannot come up with a single universally accepted definition. I mean, if you think you have one, why don’t you share it?
I don’t know if there’s a meaningful way to treat that as a spectrum and to place political systems on it. I mostly pointed out the different definitions one might use so that people wouldn’t read my examples of rights violations and think “what’s that got to do with democracy?”.
Also, there’s no ancient Greek democracy. Greece was a bunch of city-states, each with its own political system. I know that in Athenian democracy there were slaves, and as you would image they didn’t get a vote. Neither did the women. If it existed today it would probably not even be called a democracy by western standards.
You’d think a hegemony with a 100-years tradition of upkeeping democracy against major non-democratic players, would have some mechanism that would prevent itself from throwing down it’s key ideology.
“100-years tradition of upkeeping democracy”? That’s not even true in a very minimal definition of democracy, let alone if we also mean equal rights for all. Just off the top of my head:
The vote of racial minorities was not protected before 1965.
COINTELPRO was a thing just over 50 years ago, targeting whatever political group was considered undesirable by the FBI. The FBI was found to be using unlawful surveillance targeting protesters for the inexcusable killing of a black man by police as recently as five years ago.
Last election there was an attempt to overturn the election results. It’s not taken as seriously as it should have because it failed, but it was literally an attempt to overthrow democracy. It’s important to note that Trump was allowed to run for president and the case against him was dropped as soon as he got elected. I’m pointing it out because the system was already there to protect him and it’s not something that he caused through his own actions as president.
There are so many unwarranted invasions of other countries, assassinations, and human rights violations that I don’t even know where to link to as a starting point.
Don’t forget the large scale surveillance both within and without the country.
And then there’s all the undemocratic qualities of unregulated free market capitalism. Politicians are lobbied. News outlets belong to wealthy individuals who often have other businesses as well. Social media too. Technically, you get to cast a vote that is equal to everybody else’s. But your decision is based on false data, and your representative is massively incentivized to lie to you and enact policies that server their lobbyists and wealthy friends instead. Do we all really have equal power?
So if you mean democracy in a very literal and minimal sense, that the people have some sort of power through their vote, that’s technically still going on. If you mean in it a more general sense, where people have fundamental rights that are always protected regardless of race or other characteristics, and where power is not unfairly distributed between individuals and racial groups, then again not much has changed. Because that was never the case. If you think fascism was universally condemned then you just hadn’t realized how widespread and normalized it always was. Maybe fascism is growing. Maybe it’s becoming more blatant. But it was always there.
Interesting. Mind sharing which compression algorithms you compare and how?
Maybe it was good 10-20 years ago. What’s it got to offer today? Why should we use a proprietary format when there are faster and more space-efficient open formats widely available today?
The point of encrypting something that gets decrypted midway by an organization is that there are worse actors than the organization out there. I’m not really scared of Steam abusing my credit card info, but I am afraid of random internet strangers.
Also remember that https doesn’t just protect your data, it also verifies that you’re actually on the website you think you are. The internet is basically unusable without this guarantee, especially on a network you share with others.
So no vetting at all presumably since you didn’t mention it? So how do you know that Dashlane is safer than a password scheme that might be guessed by someone after they’ve already compromised a couple of your passwords?
For someone to work it out, they would have to be targeting you specifically. I would imagine that is not as common as, eg, using a database of leaked passwords to automatically try as many username-password combinations as possible. I don’t think it’s a great pattern either, but it’s probably better than what most people would do to get easy-to-remember passwords. If you string it with other patterns that are easy for you to memorize you could get a password that is decently safe in total.
Don’t complicate it. Use a password manager. I know none of my passwords and that’s how it should be.
A password manager isn’t really any less complicated. You’ve just out-sourced the complexity to someone else. How have you actually vetted your password manager and what’s your backup plan for when they fuck up?
Imagine you were asked to start speaking a new language, eg Chinese. Your brain happens to work quite differently to the rest of us. You have immense capabilities for memorization and computation but not much else. You can’t really learn Chinese with this kind of mind, but you have an idea that plays right into your strengths. You will listen to millions of conversations by real Chinese speakers and mimic their patterns. You make notes like “when one person says A, the most common response by the other person is B”, or “most often after someone says X, they follow it up with Y”. So you go into conversations with Chinese speakers and just perform these patterns. It’s all just sounds to you. You don’t recognize words and you can’t even tell from context what’s happening. If you do that well enough you are technically speaking Chinese but you will never have any intent or understanding behind what you say. That’s basically LLMs.
It’s not just Batman. This is a common trope in the superhero genre. Pop Culture Detective has a great video on the subject: https://youtu.be/LpitmEnaYeU
I have my own backup of the git repo and I downloaded this to compare and make sure it’s not some modified (potentially malicious) copy. The most recent commit on my copy of master was dc94882c9062ab88d3d5de35dcb8731111baaea2 (4 commits behind OP’s copy). I can verify:
So this does look to be a legitimate copy of the source code as it appeared on github!
Clarifications:
master (yet?)I will be seeding this for the foreseeable future.
First time I’ve heard of Mojeek. Why should I trust it more than any other company? Is there anything particular about its economic model or governance that makes it less likely to decide to be unethical?
If you have a large enough bank roll and continuously double your bet after a loss, you can never lose without a table limit.
Unless your bank roll is infinite, you always lose in the average case. My math was just an example to show the point with concrete numbers.
In truth it is trivial to prove that there is no winning strategy in roulette. If a strategy is just a series of bets, then the expected value is the sum of the expected value of the bets. Every bet in roulette has a negative expected value. Therefore, every strategy has a negative expected value as well. I’m not saying anything ground-breaking, you can read a better write-up of this idea in the wikipedia article.
If you don’t think that’s true, you are welcome to show your math which proves a positive expected value. Otherwise, saying I’m “completely wrong” means nothing.
I had been working for only a few months at my first job and it was the first time I could buy a desktop PC without very tight budget constraints. So I thought I’d look for a more midrange GPU for once. I wasn’t convinced it would be worth it but I said fuck it what’s the point of working and making money if I’m scared to spend it on something I want? So I bought an AMD Radeon 5700XT for ~400€ sometime around Christmas 2019. If you’ve been following PC hardware prices in the COVID era you know I’m extremely happy with my decision.