You can change the MX records of the domain to point at Fastmail (or some other provider) without losing the ability to log into associated "Google Workspace" accounts.
Brick-and-mortar banks often don't want to provide these to existing clients, either. I got the runaround from mine when I tried to open a TreasuryDirect account.
Good news: the legislation doesn't target you as an individual.
"Operating system provider" means a commercial or
non-profit entity that controls the Internet-enabled device's
operating system, including the design, programming, or supply
of operating systems for the Internet-enabled devices.
> Saying that that's not worth it weakens the entire cause.
Don't shoot the messenger. I'm interested in participating in effective collective action, but don't have time for taking action just for action's sake.
I don't think it's helpful to chastise people for acting in their self-interest. I am willing to individually give up a little to collectively gain a lot. That makes sense to me. But, as we have agreed upthread, this isn't the value proposition anymore. Collective bargaining has been institutionalized and nerfed by those that it was supposed to regulate. Today, it's asking me to individually give up a little in order to collectively gain a little, while adding additional complexity and a second parallel bureaucracy to my workplace. I'll vote in favor of fixing the law, and once the law is fixed, I'll be more interested in letting a union represent me.
So why should I bind myself to it, if it's reached this point? The master's tools won't dismantle the master's house. Subjecting myself to a collective bargaining agreement meaningfully limits my individual power, but no longer meaningfully limits my employer's power.
I used to get really upset when I saw a car on the road with obscured or disfigured plates. The rise of Flock/ALPRs has done a great deal to morally rehabilitate this behavior.
The STM32 in the ColdCard has a 96-bit UID "fused" at the factory. The lower 32 bits of this are seeded into the Yasmarang PRNG's initial state. Possession of a ColdCard with a UID matching a contested wallet might be able to serve as evidence of ownership.
> If you need plausible deniability, you must not use VeraCrypt to encrypt any part of (or create encrypted containers on) a device (or file system) that utilizes a wear-leveling mechanism.
It would also give you information about the order in which blocks were written, and the historical state of the disk. Because of wear leveling, block allocation isn't just a one-time initial thing; the mappings between logical and physical address space are changing with each write.
Modern SSDs are log-structured under the hood. The presentation to the host system as a random access block device is an abstraction on top of that, emulating the semantics of spinning rust. Inspecting the underlying log will reveal the location of the hidden area, even if it looks random when read linearly.
Every individual practitioner has a strong incentive to overuse it, because it's extremely effective for them individually. Every additional practitioner that uses it increases the selection pressure on their collective adversary to develop resistance. Eventually, it reaches a tipping point and becomes ineffective. But the ecosystem-level impact of its historical use remains, and makes things worse for everyone.
Recently, the baseline expectations of the Web have shifted, and I need to enable JavaScript to read a non-CloudFlare-proxied simple HTML site like LKML. I do not expect this shift will revert once Anubis outlives its effectiveness.
If it becomes widespread (as it has been doing), they will. Anubis' strategy only works while it remains a niche approach only adopted by a small number of sites.
I share your frustration with the sluggish uptake as everyday currency. This is, however, a social and political issue rather than a technical one. People don't see the problem with just using US government dollars; they buy the energy FUD; they see the IRS telling you that you need to track and pay capital gains on your 5000 sat coffee purchase, and they walk away. A new blockchain with a different monetary base and different technical properties isn't going to change this. Most people just do not yet understand why one would want an uncensorable, self-sovereign money. This will eventually change - maybe within our lifetimes - and when it does, Bitcoin will still be there.
What I'm saying is that your (and others') distaste for the amount of power currently allocated to it is an aesthetic preference, and has no bearing on the viability or utility of the Bitcoin network. It will consume exactly as much or as little energy as people throw at it. And it's not actually being allocated that much energy right now: global air conditioning power consumption is ~10x global bitcoin mining power consumption. Is air conditioning destroying the environment?
Bitcoin is designed to be unkillable; the network won't die just because some people dislike it. The difficulty adjustment will keep it going no matter how much or little hash power is spent on it. As long as it doesn't die, it will have stronger Lindy than any permissionless replacement. Permissioned alternatives (stablecoins, Taler, etc) may find some temporary success, but are bound to monetary authorities that have no choice but to self-sabotage in the long run. Its only real monetary competitor at this point in time is gold, which cannot be sent over the Internet without the aid of a trusted third party. Objections made from an aesthetic frame, such as this one, are understandable but have little to no impact on its long-term success.
Instead of throwing an LLM on top of it, just give me direct access to the levers that the agent is allowed to pull on my behalf. A sufficiently motivated attacker will be able to sweet talk the agent around whatever natural language "guardrails" were put in place, anyway.