kenmacd

I agree, but I think it's pretty clear that web-of-trust has failed. There may be 6 or fewer degrees of separation between us, but the chance that there's a path of people that actually validate and sign keys isn't very high.

As an alternative keybase.io worked well. If you knew the person controlling the github account also controlled the mastodon/twitter where you talked to them, and the website/blog, etc, then you can be pretty sure it's them. (I saw mention of more open systems here too https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29132024).

> I'm all for using SSH keys for signing, but I still would like to have something like PGP's web of trust for those keys.

same here. I use my gpg key for ssh (stored on a yubikey). Seems like a better option to me.

I am. My ssh key is my gpg auth key. It's stored on my yubikey requiring a touch each time I use it.

I use the same gpg key for talking to anyone, so why wouldn't I do the same with my ssh key? I suppose I could try to build a workflow around host-specific keys somehow derived from my auth key… but I'd need some reason to do so.

The IP you connect to could host 1000 sites. Leaking which one you're actually accessing could be important.

Just wait. The newer laptops don't have S3 in the bios at all.

Unfortunately these issues exist in Linux as well. There's no S3 in the bios.

Interesting. I didn't realize they had their own. Thanks.

It's very easy to remove that DRM. Personally I don't log in to my kobo so library books get stripped before being copied over (the kobo acts as a usb storage device).

idk. I'd be happy to run ammonia at home. When I looked years ago no one make small enough compressors though.

Interesting. Thank you, I'll check it out.

> I would love to know how they're tracking this

Heath cards. You're welcome to attempt to get a third dose.

> I also mixed [] and had a terrible reaction

And I had the same and had a terrible reaction, including vomiting. Both our situations are anecdotal though. I haven't seen any research showing that the reactions to mixing mRNA vaccines is worse.

> I then discovered the CDC does not advise mixing

Not for any known negative reason though. The WHO is fine with it, and so is the UK, Spain, and Germany (among others).

I don't suppose any of them allow setting a custom root of trust though, right?

I haven't managed to find anything other than the Pixels that have it.

> If I can’t upload my own signing keys to be trusted, it’s as good as useless to me.

I personally haven't seen a computer yet that doesn't allow this. Even if it's not provided the option to disable secure-boot is still available.

Phones are the real problem. As far as I can find only the Pixel phones will allow secure boot with a custom OS. If you own another phone you're already locked in to your manufacturers keys or no keys.

Despite the little cop picture there's no requirement there to 'return ownership'. It's more like saying I'll gives you a doc provided you agree to give me a doc.

It seems that &mut fits better there.

The protocol was designed for privacy. In that it seems to have done okay if the worst thing we can complain about is that manufacturer apps that can already see your location, your email, your search history, and your pictures, could also read your generated codes.

Even if true it seems it could still create a smaller haystack.

Bell has been pushing for the banning of VPNs for years.

https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2019/01/bell-urged-canadian-gove...

Seems like you're making a big leap from copyright enforcement.

No it's not. Look at the actual study.

> Exactly, this is disingenuous to say the least.

I think you're both vastly misinterpreting the data. It's not classifying drugs based on how popular they are.

Not as far as I know. It wouldn't make sense for them to push for more manufacturers to make more efficient bulbs but then try to prevent them from being sold elsewhere. What would they gain from such an agreement?

And there's not really anything special about these bulbs. I mean they have more redundancy and run the leds at lower current, but there's nothing special you could claim ownership to. There's no new coating or led technology or anything, so even if such an agreement was made it doesn't seem like anything would prevent another manufacturer from making them.

From Clive's video description on youtube:

>> These lamps are currently only available in Dubai. The likelihood of them appearing elsewhere is limited by the fact that they are designed to last a long time, which isn't profitable for the manufacturers.

It's profitable for Philips to make them for Dubai because regulations mean there's no one selling a worse but cheaper version. If Philips sold the bulbs for $1 more in your local shop you'd buy the cheaper version because both say "last's forever", you can't tell the difference, and you've never even heard of tDubai bulbs ('you' being an average shopper).

If other countries created regulations around the efficiency level and how long the bulbs had to last then we'd likely end up with a similar bulb. We'd pay a little more per bulb, but save over the long term. As it is now there's more profit from multiple angles on making worse bulbs.

I don't understand. How does Dubai control what other sovereign nations citizens are allowed to buy? And even if they did, why would they do so?

> But isn't that because of a regulation rather than because of the market?

Yes. Sorry, that was what I was trying to convey. The 'market' brought us incandescent bulbs that were purpose built to fail much earlier . The market brought us LED bulbs that overdrive fewer LEDs resulting in them burning out and running less efficiently.

Dubai, in essence, went the regulation road and has longer-lasting more-efficient bulbs because of it.

Are you suggesting an entirely free-market approach is the right answer, with not even any safety regulations on products/industry?

Also when did liberal and free-thinking mean someone was supposed to be in support of allowing costs to be externalized on to others?

> Light bulbs don’t illuminate.

I find this one especially funny as it's pretty much the lack of regulation that made the 'old' bulbs burn out much too quickly [1].

And before someone says "but my LED bulbs keep burning out", also the free-market/lack of regulation. To see how they should be built watch Clive on how bulbs are made for Dubai[2].

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5v8D-alAKE

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klaJqofCsu4

I couldn't agree more. I picked up a dozen Particle Xenon board (nRF52840) for around the house and as a mesh they work amazingly. I was very sad when Particle dropped support for them to focus on cell boards.

Where the mesh is IP-based it was straightforward to have nodes anywhere in the mesh send data out to my influxdb.

Okay, now tell me why there's no consistency between the case of the short version of `--recursive`

It seems this excludes increases in efficiencies. For example today we have lighting that uses a small fraction of the power of a couple decades ago.

Plus we're nearing peak populations, after which the number of humans will be going down.

Okay, well then replace service with sell device with the code in it, or put any type of DRM on a device using the code.

The point being that any license is going to have some amount of:

> restricts the freedoms of the world to build upon, adapt, and use the software for any purpose.

It's just up to if you like the terms or not.

> It's not like it "switches to even more free": it is presently nonfree.

It's free for any use-case I'm concerned with. I can modify the source, self-host it, and run thousands of nodes through it if I want. All I can't do is take their work, slap my name on it, and sell it.

If that was your intent then VPNCloud is even less free. The GPL3 license means you could never host a closed-source version.

I have ZeroTier running behind a variety of different NATs and haven't had any issues at all. It also seems to do a good job of having hosts on the same network talk directly over their private IPs.