rqs

Maybe cultural related, but I don't really know.

In China, we have a some sort of social phenomenon called "Herd behavior"[0], simply put: If something is popular in crowd, then it tend to be more popular.

Also, I found that most Chinese people are lack of motion of trying something new: If something works, then we'll keep using it and stop worrying about it until it breaks.

> I've forced the people I talk to the most to get signal.

In China, this hardly works, because people you try to convincing may also binded to WeChat by their contacts. So a easier choice for them is just to silently ditch you.

(Of course, dad and mom are more likely to stick with whatever chat service you're using, so :DDDD)

BTW: There are no encrypted chat service in China, and Chinese people don't care too much of their privacy (By western standard).

So if you tell them: We should not let government listening our conversations, let's use Signal! You will usually get replies like: Yes, just let them listen, I have nothing to hide. And keep using WeChat.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_behavior#Everyday_decisio...

> not long after that people switched back to WeChat and QQ. It's simply because WeChat and QQ are easier to use.

That is not completely right. People switch back because most of their contacts are using QQ and WeChat.

And that's actually why people keep using Tencent product -- because all your friends are using it, your mom using it, your boss using it, so you have to. In fact, I think most of those IM's gaining their user base because of this.

Also, encouraging Chinese people using domestic services is good for government, as they had better control of those services. So they did, by selectively making foreign services unstable.

Censorship is not just a mean of control, it's also a business: Government wants control, company wants money, so they formed an alliance to get what they want.

> I'm a little bit tempted to make a simple compile-to-go language. I'd get lynched at Go meetups for fragmenting the ecosystem, but it might be worth it.

I don't know about "might be worth it" part, and I don't think Go is success is because of it's concurrency model. Instead, I think Go wins because it can get thing done quickly, in one stop.

The concurrency model has been designed to help achieve that, and the huge battery pack came with the language is also for help achieve that.

I'm not discouraging you from design your language, though. In fact, I could be very happy to see a new language which can give me all the benefits that Go gives me and at same time just ... simply be a better language.

My ideal language (in my opinion) is a combination of Go and Rust: Big standard battery (Help me get things done and encourage to it's ecosystem)(&BTW, it don't have to be in the standard library), and fearless programming (Help me avoid mistakes).

Sadly Rust don't want to have a big battery for some reason :(

Photoshop?

https://krita.org

Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14899155

Well, unencrypted data by nature are vulnerable to tamper. Say change the DNS answer to point the client to another IP address in this case.

Of course DNS over HTTPS is not a sliver bullet that will ensure your privacy, instead, it's one step towards better security and thus (hopefully) privacy.

Rust support could be good, but does that mean a lot of work?

I mean, a lots of features that natively supported in Go require crates or coding-by-hand in Rust, maybe that's why Go gets supported first.

Awesome project.

As a Chinese I always want to know more about our history and lecture.

I learned a small portion of it at school from text books, but it's very hard to fully understand some of them without knowing related context. Web site like this is surly helpful on doing so.

BTW: Digging through few pages, I found one article[0] that I had to recite and write it back out based on memory on class when I was a mid schooler, that was really a bad experience back then :D. But the article itself however is deep and worth a read (if you know ancient Chinese of course).

[0] http://ctext.org/wiki.pl?if=en&chapter=428029

I suggest people who believe censorship can stop hate speech take a little tour on China's social medias.

We had very strong censorship systems built by the government, but does it stopped hate speeches? No.

In fact, if you make people can only post & receives filtered info, then you are actually pushing them to an echo chamber. And an echo chamber is a very nice place for people to fermenting hate speeches (I'm not saying it will, but it could).

So in my opinion, hate speech is bad, but censorship is worse.

The problem must be solved in a different way, without introduce censorship.

I Ctrl-F'ed the whole article, the word "fool" only appeared within the sentence: "I throught these attackers were fools".

So I think

> It starts with author calling his users "fools" for not randomizing useragent

Was not very true, given the author previously said:

> I thought it was a DDOS attack. I noticed everyone had this weird user agent that said it was a JIO phone. _I throught these attackers were fools_.

My first website was built with FrontPage[0].

I will recommend you to try it out after I figured out how to time travel :)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_FrontPage

Cool! I can use it to make some ASCII arts for my console applications.

However, please change the icon of Freeform Drawing Tool. Because currently that icon make it looks like a Curve Drawing Tool in the first glance.

This got me thinking why police officers in the US tend to use gun as a weapon of their high priority choice.

Consider many people in the US owns gun, maybe it's because of those officers are fear of death (It's very normal) so they tend to act first to save themselves?

As an outsider, I don't think it's a good thing to allow people to own a gun. Because people are different in general, some easy to anger, some more likely to hurt other. It doesn't mean they are naturally bad, they may just need longer time to cold themselves down. And gun is too quick and lethal, ripped than chance from them.

If people need to protect themselves, maybe allowing them to own a taser instead?

I wounder how it would effects the earning of those taxis drivers? Can switching to electric cab increase their income?

It will be really great too see their income (Not just financially) increased by switching to electric vehicles. Because that could give people stronger motive do to this kind of switch than government subsidy.

A taxis company in our city renewed their cabs recently, unfortunately they picked rather old cheap tech cabs that burning petrol + natural gas. If Shenzhen's taxis companies and drivers can receive benefits from such, everybody will eventually follow the trend.

American people do more or less received it.

Ever been given an assignment that requires you dig through a whole library to prove a point? Or having to conclude a book all by yourself? There are lot's of critical thinking and reasoning involved there, because if you don't do that ahead of time, other people may criticize you and it's embarrassing. So, you actually received some of the training by doing those things.

In China, the text book often concluded most of the things for student, so you end up just copying content from the book into your submission. And teachers will verify your submission by check whether or not you included the right content.

Because of that, people lost many of chance to exercise their abilities of forming a sophisticated opinion.

Sorry for off-topic, this branch is gone out of hand.

OK, No, instead, I'm teaching you how to preform an argument so other people can understand you well, rather than get yourself a brunch of down votes and nobody believes what you said.

It's very clear to me, most Chinese people didn't receive any proper training on how to make an argument that could yield good results. Everybody in the end is just ranting to each other without generating or putting out valuable information.

Unfortunately, you are among those who don't know how. For example, from your comment I quote:

> I assume you are a typical so-called westerner.

> Serpentza? I watched most of his videos, and found he is just a hypocritical racist ... he never communicate with the locals, and just live in his own circles ...

First of all, I consider myself Rational. You're welcome if you treat it as a synonym of 'westerner', I don't put it that way, however.

Secondly, be careful when you want make this kind of assumptions, because it's actually quite easy to be proved wrong.

For example, I could ask you what you mean by 'westerner', then you may answer "Chinese people who favors west ideology", then I can either say "No, I just rational" like what I just did to save my time, or, if I want to hook you up, I could just let you explain "What is west ideology?", after that, I can just simply put out a question "Can you point out any of my words up there which gives you that impression?" while knowing you can't.

About that video host, I don't think you knew hes personal life out of the camera do you? So how do you prove "he never communicate with the locals"? Especially when hes wife is a local Chinese.

I'm not ensuring you hes 100% correct, in fact some part of it is not. However, that video is good enough for people who interested on the topic, a informative watch for them.

To preform an good argument, one fundamental rule you need to know is it's required for you to show your respect, by correctly understanding what's your opponent is saying and their reason, and by putting out your reason of why your opponent were wrong if they did.

A high quality comprehensive comment will bring you likes, bad one will give you down votes. If you in a hurry, don't post anything until you have time to do so. Because you need time to research the problem.

And the reason of why there are a population limit, is not because what you said:

> Some stupid officers can make all kinds of ridiculous policies, sometimes the basic reason is just to consolidate their regime

You need to have some basic understanding on politics and history to provide a reasonable answer, don't assume our government are just made of a brunch of idiots, this will not make you look better.

In my point of view, the reason of limiting the population of those tier 1 cities is complex, simply put:

1, The government needs to found a way to limit how many resources (both nature and welfare) a single city can consume. Because of a lots of reason (geo location for example), the city cannot hold too many people. (Shanghai for example, relies heavily on piped and shipped natural gas[0], which is expensive and not a long-term solution)

2, Many cities in China is not well designed. When it needs to handle huge amount of population, problems (Pollution, traffic jam, security problem etc) will occur.

3, Tier 1 cities are sucking resources (Intelligent people, welfare, infrastructure etc) from other cities, makes them harder to grow.

However, I skeptical about such hard limit will hold, because it's too hard to implement (What? they want to install doors for every city?), and you just can't stop people from seeking better life. We'll see how it goes.

[0] http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-12/29/content_...

I assume you're an another Chinese.

If you are, I recommend you to provide more information in your comment before posting.

For example, why it's unfair to compare India with China? You need to provide a reasonable ... will ... reason.

Not everyone here knows what is it like to actually live in China, so it's fairly reasonable for people to be ignorance about it. Don't be offended or attack other people because of that.

For curious people, you may watch this guy's video (China vs. India by serpentza): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLbGCHHT3F4&index=4&list=PLn...

Just that?

Chinese here. I could say, if our government proves capitalism can be very well integrated and become more productive in an authoritarianism society, then that is a really bad news for democracy.

On the other hand though, after watching many Fox News clips on Youtube, I don't think you guys are doing very well on democracy, especially the people in the US.

Democracy is much harder to maintain than authoritarianism. It's very easy to get hijacked, especially the world is full of liars now days.

I'm not saying you should abort democracy, instead, you guys should be grateful for what you have, and be careful don't lose it, because if you did, you probably won't get another one for free.

For somebody who also have no life (like me):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_of_Heroes

Well, at least you can protest about it.

In China, collecting your bio data is more like a procedure than a choose.

For example, I renewed my citizen ID card few weeks ago, and got my facial and fingerprint collected.

Also, some companies like Alibaba are helping the data collection: https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/03/alipay-facial-recognitio... and http://www.solidot.org/story?sid=47235 (In Chinese)

I believe all those data will be used to help tracking people.

I'm also standing when working, however, my feet hurts if I'm wearing a wrong shoes that day.

Guess people who want to try out standing desk may also need pair of a good & soft running shoes.

I implemented a protocol that uses MtE on a CFB mode cipher. And that's why I asked that question.

Now, it seems like I may did it horribly wrong, I'm going to fix it right now.

Thank you!

EDIT:

After I read an answer[0] on StackExchange, I realized I maybe did it right (Because of the CFB mode is different than CBC). Looks like I need to learn a whole lot more before start that fixing.

Next time I'll just use GCM and save all these troubles.

[0] https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/42369/is-this-sym...

Thank you for the link and explanation, I've learned a lot today.

I agreed with most of part, but

> the payloads are decrypted before the HMAC is checked

I mean, on ClientA, I can calculate the HMACA of the plain-text, then encrypt the plain-text using KeyA to get MessageA

Then, on ClientB, I decrypt the MessageA using KeyB to get plain-text, and calculate HMACB from the plain-text.

After all that, I can still compare HMACA against HMACB to check if the message is authentic.

So what seems to be the problem here?

I'm optimistic because I believe in the future, people are the most important element of productivity.

So as long as that won't change, all country will eventually lean towards democracy if they want to survive in the global competition.

Surveillance or spying devices won't stop that trend.

Don't look it that way.

Let's first figure out why democracy rises in the first place: It's because some events, the Industrial Revolution for example, created a bunch of wealthy middle classes, who then sort of became the driving force of their country and start to demanding for rights.

Middle class exists for very long time before official democratization, and I don't think they just sit there and waiting for rights raining on them, rather, I believe they're constantly demanding for more rights. It's just the society takes time to change.

In China, something like Industrial Revolution never actually happened because of invasion, war and stupid government decisions. As result, we also don't have middle class people until after the Economic Reform[0] which is very recent compare to other countries.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform

If you look though the history, you will found democracy in the entire history of China is very rare thing (Republic Of China is short lived).

So, I'm not so surprised that we Chinese end up with an authoritarian government model we currently have here.

First, let me clear one thing: It's not saying you can't blame the government for any wrong doing at all. In fact, I (and other people) do that all the time on the online forum operated by local government (I consider our local government is a fairly open one, so it's may not apply to other local governments). But you have to learn to avoid some topic that may get you into trouble.

This case is an example. If my guess is right: He's talking about a high ranking official of central government, who recently got exposed by a guy call GuoWengui[0] and been removed from a very important position.

In China, this kind of case by nature is very sensitive, CCP don't want to see anyone talking about it.

I'm not saying everybody should follow CCP's No Talk Rule though, I believe all kinds of censorship is bad. However, consider is very hard to change people's (Including government officials) mindset after thousands of years of authoritarianism, sometime it's better to save yourself from those troubles, and let time do it's work to upgrade the society first.

The hope is that, through years of advancement on science and economy etc (in short, productivity), the importance of individual can eventually out weight authoritarianism, and force the government to reform to an more advanced one.

Until then though, that censorship will stay.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guo_Wengui

And, hey, there are lot's of places people can talk about those very sensitive topic, like ... Twitter? Why doing so on a domestic online service and then worrying about getting trouble because of that.

I'm not sure what you mean by end-to-end encryption.

It's a group chat, so it's more likely all messages are processed on server and then relayed to every people in the group. The easiest way to monitoring that kind of chat messages is .... install monitoring software directly on server.

And as far as I know, many (If not all) commonly used domestic chat software in China are monitored by the government.

So, it's a rather common sense in China to NOT chat on some specific topic during some specific period (Or, don't talk about it at all) online.

It's not an end-to-end encryption problem, it is the problem of National security (What ever that means to CCP) v.s. Individual freedom.

OK, fair.

But since I can't edit that post any more, let me just give you a free hug so we can continue enjoying the rest of the day.

> Isn't it a common practice to follow the local law

Oh, I like this statement.

Because based on the same statement, if Cook wants to make money in a country where been gay will be punished by death[0][1], he must be smiling like a sunflower when he standing in front of a gay couple who will soon be executed because of, well, local law.

Very delightful, Huh?

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/13... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty_for_homosexualit...

Sure we will, in my opinion, Forgotten is the biggest weakness we human have.

Just watching those kids quantum stream their lifes in the Andromeda, yet none of them even mentioned the good old Voyager 1.