emptysongglass

Right, but I wasn't referring to old thought processes. I was referring to current.

That's kind of the point of democratic institutions, though: centralizing a lot of these directive powers leads to explosive efficiencies at the cost of liberty to, for example, surface objections as you illustrate. Or, more dramatically, throwing people who object into dark cells.

That's how autocratic regimes can take on megaprojects without a lot of the red tape that leads to, for example, a paralytically slow rollout of Seattle light rail.

You choose your poison.

Russia has not been winning on the ground. It's two and a half years into the war and Russia is still stuck contesting edge territories. Russia has overwhelmingly larger numbers, but with as high as 7:1 casualties to Ukraine and with a significant increase in casualties over the last eight months.

The frontline is stabilized and the ruble is collapsing. What exactly is being won here?

Evil (VIM emulation mode in Emacs) does not in any way behave like a second-class citizen. I use evil every single day and it's fantastic.

Emacs is a text editor, yes, among other things.

If anyone is reading this who hasn't tried Emacs, don't let takes like this spoil you giving Emacs a try. Doom Emacs is a fantastic experience to get started but there are more minimal starter kits that give you just evil-mode to start.

Denmark did get rid of its forests a long time ago, after World War I. Germany has vast forests, a magnitude larger than those in Denmark, a country which is almost entirely farmland outside the cities. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Denmark drained the only source of natural diversity it had, its marshlands, after World War I and turned the entire country into farmland. Outside the cities, it is endless fields of farmland. And now its chickens have come home to roost, having poisoned the soil and rivers. This is entirely Denmark's fault, and now they're trying to reverse some of the damage they did.

Why is ARM allowed to design chips with Xiaomi?

Always, always, dogfood what you produce. The number one way devs cease making products people care to use is by not using what they make.

Ayone can make claims about anything at all in progressively shriller octaves, be it aliens are among us or we are ruled by a world government of lizard-people. We the opposition don't actually need to address those claims, no matter how dire, if they are meritless.

A collective hallucination of what intelligence is is not a good basis for an argument about doom probabilities. We don't have a clue, yet loud people are pretending we do.

It is utterly horrifying that a contingent of Yudkowskyites essentially hijacked reasonable discourse around this subject. I grew up interacting with the LessWrong people: many of them have other problems interfacing with society that make it obvious to them they know what being "less wrong" looks like. The problem is we don't actually know any way to separate the human experience from "pure logic", whatever that actually means.

I'm not sure why you commented to tell the world what you thought when you could have gone to the website and confirmed it's a DAW for yourself.

Oh, please stop. There's little need for language like, "despise" here and you're just stirring the pot.

As someone who uses both, no, the differences are almost entirely cosmetic.

The holy war is dumb and over. The jokes are stupid. Whenever anyone tries to bring it up, just tell them to knock it off.

Or Floorp: https://floorp.app

It's super buggy. It starts with a diagnostic terminal I have to move off to another workspace, the status bar immediately breaks and stops updating on sleep (known issue that's on the GitHub repo), basically the Rust rewrite has thus far made it a much worse experience.

> I like Godot but its open source nature means it does have some rough edges, mostly around GDScript but framework features like tilemap implementation, model imports and physics have always been a bit wonky.

You're attributing a lack in Godot you feel to it being open source. Given the commercial success of other open source projects like Blender, I don't think this is a fair or measured take.

It's unclear what's meant by "private" chats here: I assume Telegram is not planning on breaking the encryption of E2EE Secret Chats and that the non-E2EE Cloud Chats will be subject to greater controls?

These are all false claims. Messages are not stored in plaintext. Secret Chats are E2EE and use standard crypto primitives. All of this is well-documented. [1] [2]

[1] https://core.telegram.org/mtproto/AJiEAwIYFoAsBGJBjZwYoQIwFM...

[2] https://core.telegram.org/api/end-to-end

I find it deeply uncomfortable that the HN contingent is rushing to defend the French government on this matter.

The European Union has been angling for more comprehensive access to messaging platforms with proposal after proposal.

Everyone here loves to sing the praises of the EU but broad regulatory powers is not a clear cut value proposition: European governments and those governed have a long history of oppression.

What's more, many of the broad regulatory powers have been used successfully by despotic regimes like China as cudgels not only to break apart monopolies (good) but to demand unfettered access to data (bad).

These accusations made by the French government of conspiracy on one individual and alleged invitations by a head of state to entrap should be chilling to anyone observing. It reminds me of what happened to Jack Ma, when Ant threatened the CPC's interests.

If Telegram really was not answering enforcement requests in a timely manner, then France should have moved against the company either through a direct ban on the app itself or other court action. Putting its CEO in prison sends a message. That message should be terrifying to anyone who values a free society.

The person you replied to wrote,

> As another HN user pointed out Telegram does not store messages in plaintext: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41348228

Telegram does not store messages in plaintext.

Your claim:

> That user seems to be misinformed, and appears to be discussing client-server encryption, not end-to-end encryption

Is categorically false. You do not get to redefine what encryption is. That is not your right.

You've been corrected repeatedly. If you continue to insist you have not made a false claim, you are then lying.

The protocol is fully documented. You are free to read it for yourself without resorting to guessing. [1]

Messages are not stored in plaintext. The claim they are stored in plaintext is false.

One can have cogent arguments about one's preference for E2EE or not but the repeated claim here and elsewhere that messages are stored in plaintext is simply hearsay.

[1] https://core.telegram.org/mtproto/AJiEAwIYFoAsBGJBjZwYoQIwFM...

You don't get to make a false claim and then handwave it away. You made the claim and you were given evidence otherwise.

This was not a case of a user confusing encryption in transit, as you claim.

I don't think the point is to argue anti-cheat isn't effective, the point is to draw a line in the sand and say, this is where it stops.

Take the analogy of enabling better police work by granting unlimited access to our private communications. No one doubts it would be effective, but the cost and the threat is too much.

This is the line we draw in the sand: get out of the kernel, anti-cheat has no business being there. The cost and threat are too great.

This acceptance is the same situation that brought us the Crowdstrike incident. It's unacceptable.

We fail as an industry and as a society when we accept these compromises.

That user and the user you are replying to are not misinformed. They are perfectly correct.

Telegram does not store messages in plaintext. Period.

No matter how shrill the cries from Moxie Marlinespike and his adherents, E2EE is not the only form of encryption.

MTProto 2.0 is fully documented and everything the user linked described is true.

> So in your view it's perfectly ok to run an internet service where you don't check for CSAM?

Well, that's quite the assumption. The commenter you've replied to said nothing like this. And yet this is your first conclusion?? Is this how you operate in real life, at your job?

Telegram does moderate for CSAM. The claim that it does not is completely unsubstantiated. You can find CSAM across Meta's products. Does that mean they do not check for CSAM? No.

You keep good company: the French government continues to shelter the actually convicted sexual predator, Roman Polanski, and sheltered Iran's first Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khomeini.

Yes, of course I disagree. This is one claim among many. Specifically, this appalling characterization and accusation you made:

> Worse, Durov was involved with CSAM material and did nothing about it. For this, he is immoral and in my opinion, a disgusting human being.

You have no idea who Durov is. You have a handful of claims by French authorities without evidence and you immediately jump to loathing this person and reviling them as a "disgusting human being"? Shame on you.

They're just another commenter making a comment with unqualified confidence.

Yes, and, people like devman0 making this top-rated comment in the last thread:

>A lot of really terrible takes in this comment section. Telegram didn't have encrypted groups by default, and telegram possessed a lot of content on their servers that they had been made aware was illegal and didn't cooperate. Nothing more, nothing less.

When they have absolutely no idea what's going on. The number one terrible take is this very quoted comment.

Commenters and their supporters on this site love to make unequivocal statements like this as if they possessed the mind of god themselves.

But devman0 and people who upvoted their comment: you are responsible for this misinformation. Think before you shout to the heavens on a topic you know absolutely nothing about. That's on all of you.

Anyone else reading this comment thread: discuss with restraint based on the knowledge you have. Unless you are directly involved in this case, you don't have even the faintest clue of what you're talking about.

Why don't they then? I've been trying to tell US merchants they can literally get free EU customers by registering for IOSS and the most I've gotten is a shrug.

Many of us are willing to pay for shipping and taxes up front just so their products don't get caught in the "free money for us" exploitation racket that is EU customs.

On the other hand, how would anyone have heard about this? This is the very first time I'm hearing anything about Section 174.

Plus, this doesn't really explain Europe's tech sector dumping, since from a quick search this is entirely an American thing.

So maybe you're just as wrong as anyone else?