650 karma · joined July 26, 2020
However in the meanwhile, there is unbelievable damage and burden on family members that the sick person least of all wants, as articulated by Jo when he still had his faculties.
And there’s a long tail of other diseases. I believe we’ll make progress on those too, but this does not preclude mercy for the victim of the disease.
It turns out that in practice it is quite hard to actually get your loved ones to follow through with clandestinely offing you.
And the state doesn’t offer a mechanism for any kind of advanced end of life request.
https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd10xx/EWD1036.PDF
I know it’s silly, but it just made him seem more human to me.
That’s reasonable for you?
I mean it’s ok if you want to just say what they’re doing sucks. But I’d find your position more compelling if you could offer a reasonable alternative.
Alice, Bob, and Charlie are in a group. Alice blocks Bob. Bob sends a message. Charlie responds to it. Alice says “what are you on about Charlie?” Because she didn’t see bobs message because she has him blocked.
Alice and Charlie work out via messaging back and forth in the group that bob sent a message and that Alice has him blocked. That’s awkward for everyone. And happens every time bob sends a message in the group.
How would you deal with that?
Consider the context in which Signal came of age - post Snowden mass surveillance. Signal has always prioritized fighting mass surveillance.
Getting individual devices hacked to recover its content is already outside of what I’d consider “mass surveillance”.
That is, even if you don’t use disappearing messages, you’re much less likely to have your conversations slurped up into some PRISM aggregator type machine by using an e2e communication channel like Signal, in part due to its forward secrecy capabilities.
That said - no harm in fighting targeted surveillance as well. Wether it be from a 3 letter agency, a phone thief, or an overzealous personal relationship.
One of the big innovations of the signal protocol, (called axolotl at the time) was that perfect forward secrecy, requires a handshake between participants before _each_ message, which is not compatible with the nature of async messaging, where the recipient might be (probably is) offline at the time of sending.
Instead Signal protocol does an eventual key ratcheting as soon as messages are round tripped between participants by essentially attaching half a handshake to each outgoing message.
I wonder if iMessage will feel compelled to up their game. They were early to the e2e game, for which they have my respect (they had their issues, I know), but will they put work into evolving their system? Or will they be happy being “second best” for default messaging privacy capabilities when privacy is so intricate to their marketing?
Yeah, there probably are widespread cultural problems.
Hyperbole aside, I imagine most of “the actual work” (as you say) of maintaining any open source volunteer encyclopedia for decades has got to be the community culture and processes, not any technical artifact.
If you think the work of Wikipedia is “just” the words in articles, well, this is the same mindset of everyone’s favorite debunked critique of early Dropbox.
Indeed!
In seriousness, Nordic (cross country) skiing is an activity enjoyable well into old age. Having done a couple non-competitive “races”, I’m always amazed at the range of ages.
...Adorable old timers with perfect form just slowly gliding across the snow for hours.
That is - make valid syntax and its composition first class UX entities, rather than just a freeform stream of hopefully parseable text.
Strictly visually programming languages can be pretty tedious, but maybe some hybrid where symbols/names can be keyed in, but scoping elements such as a function definition, a module scope, and maybe a parenthetical would be added as an indivisible unit.
There was a bit of a learning curve, but actually the interface isn’t bad if the software is built for it.
When it’s not though, it’s absolutely agonizing.
This isn’t a complaint at all - it just made me very aware of my own dietary assumptions.
It sounds very good.
Do you think you might be a tetrachromat?
And on balance, I love open source!
It’s just one of those unfortunate things where it’s hard and slow to be considerate while being easy and cheap to be inconsiderate.
I frequently perceive a sense of entitlement from drive by PR contributors, as if they are giving a gift to the maintainer, when in reality, it often takes more time for the maintainer to test, review, and give feedback on contributions than if they’d done it themselves.
I imagine the people spamming repositories for a T-shirt are the same people who will harass maintainers to “just merge it already.”
And ban “bad” propaganda movies and media from the CCP?
And ban direct conversation with known “bad actors” in the CCP?
This sounds like a really slippery slope to me.
A clarification: from what I can tell reading the article, hunting octopus was not illegal, but there were restrictions against big commercial style net and pot fishing of octopus.
I liked how the article juxtaposed the (presumed good) hip locavore restaurant vs the (presumed bad) redneck that just wades in and engages in octafisticuffs.
Just one little example
> ...offers an additional layer of encryption, where messages can get deleted after a specific time.
That’s not encryption. That’s application logic which you must trust is working on the recipients device as well as yours.
There are a lot of other mistakes. It seems like regurgitated blog spam, and I won’t spend time correcting the rest of it.
doing some quick googling shows these clearer, shorter, and more correct articles:
Very short explainer: https://protonmail.com/blog/what-is-end-to-end-encryption/
More in depth: https://ssd.eff.org/en/module/deep-dive-end-end-encryption-h...
I love workshopping copy!
How about:
To mitigate events like this, we only store a scrambled version of your password. Though your actual password can’t be simply unscrambled from the leaked data, it is possible it could be deduced by a guess and check process - especially if you are using a weak or common password.
Why does it “appear” that way?
Please edit your post rather than spreading misinformation.
This is why we shouldn’t be employing people whose job it is to snatch people they don’t know anything about, who just assume you’re a threat until YOU PROVE that you’re innocent.
No one has said that. You are fabricating.