mfru

Sorry, but haven't you noticed how many companies and public bodies in Europe are using Azure, AWS and GCP?

I'd say that is rather very relevant.

The Patriot Act is the foremost frontier in the ongoing dispute about the so-called Privacy Shield.

> American law doesn’t apply to someone running a server in Brussels.

Except when the one running and renting out the server is Microsoft, Amazon, or some other US entity and the Patriot Act exists.

"You criticize society yet you are participating in one. How hypocritical. I am very smart"

You might know the meme. This is you enacting it.

it is wild how often people will respond with red scare rhetoric once the scary c-word drops.

Hahaha!

Investing in stocks is definitely akin to gambling.

With individual stocks, you are just betting on horses.

With hedging, you are betting on economic sectors (which can be as large as the whole world economic system) growing infinitely.

And regarding systems growing infinitely in limited environments, I have some bad news for you. Some would call them cancerous.

Well, apparently it stopped people who made profit specifically by using their project without giving back and that might have alleviated the OPs frustration, which is fair enough.

It seems to me that dual-licensing AGPL + commercial and no CLAs is the best way to go.

AGPL ensures no one will serve your software via network without also showing their code (which they can avoid by buying commercial licenses and thus funding the project) and no CLAs ensures that the project can not be relicensed without every contributor agreeing. (after all, if really every person can agree it is a good idea there might be some merit to it).

the issues exist anyways. the difference is the media gets to choose which issues most people should get angry about in the interest of their investors.

Sure, if you have the privilege to make your life unnecessarily harder than it is, then choosing another CSS framework based on whether it has shady sponsors or not is a great pastime.

Yeah no, hard pass on that.

like?

> I don't think I"m ever gonna complain about my job in America again.

Voilá, this is how those in power are kept in power.

As with every time when scandals in tech land break:

"You Deserve a Tech Union" https://abookapart.com/products/you-deserve-a-tech-union

Put in the work, organize, unionize. The alternative is sisyphusian repetition of the same situations.

Finally, thank you for Gallery. This is exactly how I want my Gallery to be.

Scrolling is a bit choppy unfortunately, though.

it is a nice tool for visual thinkers, also good for creating mood boards.

i'd be more interested in the "unbiased" part, because there is no such thing as having no bias. bias is everywhere and usually people or sources claiming to have no biases just don't know about theirs or actively try to hide them.

> the work the people making the pencils for Jimmy would not exist without Jimmy

Apart from this example being overly reductive and not rooted in reality, the hypothetical Jimmy would eventually be replaced by someone else who would invent this pencil.

There is no truth that needs a single person to be uncovered. There are infinitely many people able to invent the pencil given enough tries and time. This also makes the argument of original thought not being original.

We are made and influenced by our surroundings and thus the ideas we form must necessarily be a product of those surroundings.

So, even if Jimmy had the idea to "invent" the pencil, he will not be the first one who did. He might be the first one with enough capital to execute (as in buy machines and factories, hire workers and exploit them for their labor and scale the business to planet-scale) and this is where it gets ugly.

"The right to food" is in the process of being advocated for.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/food

also interesting, the US and Israel keep voting against establishing a right to food:

https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-v...

https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3951462?ln=en

For cult leaders, however, we are in familiar approval territories.

I think it is more readable than most pages.

One of the few pages where I don't need to scale up at least one step in my browser.

i love paying for nebula and support my favorite creators there and blocking everything else on youtube

But, apparently nobody cares even if the flag was unfair and unnecessary.

my thinking was that someone with domain expertise could identify if the summary and key takeaways make sense and furthermore if the accusations have merit.

anyways, it seems i cannot delete the comment, so would be great if a moderator or something could do it, thanks.

Crop fields do indeed disrupt the habitats of wild animals, and wild animals are also killed when harvesting plants. However, this point makes the case for a plant-based diet and not against it, since many more plants are required to produce a measure of animal flesh for food (often as high as 12:1) than are required to produce an equal measure of plants for food (which is obviously 1:1). Because of this, a plant-based diet causes less suffering and death than one that includes animals.

https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/vegans-kill-animals-too

Not exactly sure if explicitly declared output of the Kagi Universal Summarizer is allowed (will delete again if not, but I did not see a guideline for it), but I think this could be a start sparking further curiosity. (I don't know how accurate the output is, as I am not a domain expert in PQC or cryptography in general, for that matter)

Kagi Universal Summarizer output for "Summary":

This web page discusses the selection of the Kyber and NTRU cryptosystems as the quantum-resistant digital signature algorithms by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). It analyzes NIST's claims about the security levels of Kyber-512 compared to AES-128. While NIST argued Kyber-512's security level is boosted enough by memory access costs to meet the AES-128 threshold, the text raises uncertainties around accurately modeling such costs and argues NTRU may have advantages in flexibility and performance. Overall, the page questions whether NIST fully justified selecting Kyber-512 over NTRU given the uncertainties in quantifying the security of lattice-based cryptosystems against future attacks.

Kagi Universal Summarizer output for "Key moments":

- There is debate around whether Kyber-512 provides adequate security compared to the AES-128 benchmark. NIST claims it meets this level factoring in memory access costs, but others argue the analysis is uncertain.

- NIST's analysis added 40 bits of estimated security to Kyber-512's post-quantum security level due to memory costs, bringing it above the AES-128 threshold. Critics question this calculation.

- NTRU provides greater flexibility than Kyber in supporting a wider range of security levels. At some levels it also has better performance and security than Kyber options.

- The security of lattice-based cryptosystems like Kyber and NTRU is not fully understood, and there is a risk of better attacks being discovered in the future.

- Standardizing a system like Kyber-512 that may have limited security margin could be reckless given lattice cryptanalysis uncertainties.

- Critics argue NIST has not clearly explained its security evaluations and claims about Kyber-512's margin above AES-128.

- Memory access costs are important to lattice security but are not fully quantified in their impact on Kyber versus classical attacks on AES.

- Removing Kyber-512 could make NTRU the strongest candidate given its flexibility at multiple security levels.

- One paper argued multi-ciphertext attacks on Kyber may be as difficult as single-ciphertext attacks.

- There are calls for NIST to be transparent about its analysis and decision making regarding Kyber-512.

if you are not convinced by rational arguments it kinda is useless to discuss this topic anyways, then.

Why was this submission never unflagged?

I can second that.

In my experience these phrases are used often:

- "No he wouldn't do that"

- "Are you sure that this is true?"

- "I mean, how could he know that it was too much?"

- "Maybe it was kinda overstepping, but he apologized!"

- "I mean she isn't such a pious girl either." (kind of literally translated from my language, so maybe it sounds strange in English)

Yes, it should be turned off.