kriops

It is easy to ban what are currently the most popular apps for encrypted messaging. But the math is more or less trivial, to the point that this will simply kick off a cat-and-mouse game the government cannot win. And that is before steganography comes into play.

At the absolute worst, OTPs are trivially uncrackable and relatively foolproof, assuming you can exchange keys out of band. Furthermore, it is trivial to generate keys that decode captured ciphertext into decoy cleartext, should the government try to coerce the keys from you.

I'm not saying OTP is practical for regular people in everyday chats (though it certainly can be for text, in my opinion). However, it is apparent to me that if RSA+AES becomes unviable, for example, then it will have nearly no impact on any criminal operation that cares about security.

Australia is dystopic in more ways than one[1], so this unfortunately does not surprise me.

I probably do not have to point out the issue with the soundbite, but I am doing it anyway: The “laws” of mathematics are valid across all of existence. Last time I checked, that includes Australia. As a matter of fact, I have personally stored encrypted communications with an Australian vendor after the law went into effect (not that I knew about that law in particular). And I can confirm that the communications were indeed still encrypted.

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kYIojG707w (Honest Government Ad | Our Last Fair Election?)

Define 'encrypted app' in a way that is not just completely arbitrary and internally inconsistent.

If I possess, e.g., a certain quantity of U235, the government can act on the material, e.g., confiscate it because it is a physical entity. Meanwhile, I can arrive at the knowledge required for encryption, and even an encrypted message, a priori.

In other words, it is not even slightly comparable.

What an absolute clown literally trying to outlaw math. Are people going to jail every time they apply Fermat's little theorem, or what exactly is the plan here?

Optional::map returns an empty optional if the passed function returns null. This is incorrect and can be especially hurtful in intermediate operations. Allowing Optional::map to return an Optional<void> would have been correct.

Alternatively, just don't call it 'map'.

I agree implementing your Option<T> type is better. The problem is that people will use whatever is available in the standard library—I am not working in isolation.

Monads are well-defined, though. Monoids in the category of endofunctors, anyone?

The problem is when implementations aren’t actually monads at all. The same goes for other functional concepts. I wrote a blog about Java’s Optional::map here: https://kristofferopsahl.com/javas-optional-has-a-problem/

It’s the same kind of problem, where naming signals something the implementation is not.

(Am I allowed to link my own blog btw?)

As long as the companies in question aren't monopolies on violence, it's a complete non-issue. So with that in mind, why would any sane person want to impose such an inefficient mechanism to allocate resources and make decisions within a company or corporation?

The only good thing about democracy in the context of a state, after all, is that every other alternative is worse. But that is strictly because of the fundamentally violent nature of the concept of a state, which does not apply to companies or corporations.

“More charitable than charity” is circular – nothing can be more charitable than charity.

Something can however be a lot more valuable than any action by which value is destroyed. Destroying value, by the way, can by definition not be sustainable. Alas, opportunity cost is (also by definition) not directly observable, so it gets dismissed. Hence, e.g., the broken window fallacy.

You don’t “give to capitalism”, you engage in voluntary transactions with other individuals and legal entities, such that they are a net (expected) gain in value for all parties involved.

In addition to being unnecessarily aggressive, this is a strawman and whataboutism.

Food for thought: Do you think slavery is or was a “service to humanity”? Because that is what you are advocating: Forcing some set of people to work for free for another.

Also why do you think it has become so cheap in the first place?

This is not to say that eradicating malaria might not make a lot of sense by the way. But you are being incredibly disingenuous, and your argument is based on bad premises.

The entire point of capitalism is that they are not. That is also the reason why there is no real alternative to the price mechanism wrt. resource allocation at scale.

Obviously not true, as explained by other replies.

But if it was true, then so what?

If and only if you somehow manage to compromise one secret without compromising the other.

A better service to humanity yet is taking that money and spending it on whatever is valuable to yourself, thus providing more people with the opportunity to sustainably work for a living. Capitalism and all that.

I, too, own a Tesla. And granted, analogous to the way we can achieve fusion today.

Edit: Don’t get me wrong btw. I love autopilot. It’s just completely incapable of handling a large number of very common scenarios.

Nice catch. Those passwords-as-usernames got me :)

> I think of it more like self driving cars.

Analogous to the way I think of self-driving cars is the way I think of fusion: perpetually a few years away from a 'real' breakthrough.

There is currently no reason to believe that LLMs cannot acquire the ability to write secure code in the most prevalent use cases. However, this is contingent upon the availability of appropriate tooling, likely a Rust-like compiler. Furthermore, there's no reason to think that LLMs will become useful tools for validating the security of applications at either the model or implementation level—though they can be useful for detecting quick wins.

Science is philosophy, though what one might describe as applied philosophy. The point being: science (the scientific method) cannot exist outside the context of some epistemic system.

I saw your 'recommendation' to read about Hume further up the comment chain. Respectfully, I know more than you. Take your own suggestion. But don't just read about Hume; get a broader intro to the subject so you can understand how ontology, epistemology, ethics, and politics tie into one another.

> No one is experiencing the reality you are.

This is a common sentiment, but it is also a declaration of epistemic bankruptcy, thus incompatible with the scientific method.

I’ve used it at a previous job. SMB, ca. 200(?) employees.

Separate accounts for work and private. SSO for the work account is perfectly fine for me as a dev and a big advantage for the company. But yes, don't conflate the two use cases.

Same reason. Besides, you can get bleeding edge software through Homebrew.

Gitlab didn’t arguably and allegedly hijack an established oss brand for their core product.

Why? Regardless of your view of Trump, would you not expect mr. Cook to play the game? His only job is literally and figuratively to navigate hell or high waters to deliver value to the shareholders.

I want to signal boost the following quote from the URL above:

> Forgejo was created in October 2022 after a for profit company took over the Gitea project. It exists under the umbrella of a non-profit organization, Codeberg e.V. and is developed in the interest of the general public. In the year that followed, this difference in governance led to choices that made Forgejo significantly and durably different from Gitea.

If you take it at face value (at your peril), Gitea is about to start enshittification, while Forgejo will not at any point. My personal opinion, is that this is credible.

Taxes are only ever a problem if you have money … or something equivalent.

Asserting ruminants are “irrelevant” tells me nobody should take you seriously on this topic. Replicating their function is the problem to solve if you ever want to make the case you think you are making.

What a weird question, if it was at all genuine. Not only is it not inefficient but, e.g., cows are absolutely unique and amazing for their ability to digest, e.g., grass into something that is highly nutritiously desirable for humans.

(Implied) invalid generalization, or confirmation bias. This is a good reason to not eat that particular meat. In general, however, meat is an S-tier source of nutrition, vitamins, and minerals.

Risk. There is nothing to fight against, but "we" might consider educating ourselves so that we understand why the calculation that happens through the price mechanism benefits all, and moreso than any alternative.