afaik mmW is FR2
5G FR1 is sub x-band microwave
- 0 Posts
- 156 Comments
Joined 4 years ago
Cake day: October 2nd, 2020
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
cool, sounds like you have most of the principles down.
what i didn’t yet see articulated with chat-e2ee is how the actual code itself verifies itself to the user in the browser? it sounds to me like it assumes the server which serves the code is ‘trusted’, while the theoretically different server(s) which transmits the messages can be ‘untrusted’.
out of interest, do you actually mean no login, or do you mean no email-verified login?
i’m trying to understand your exact scenario.
but in general, the problem is where do you get your original key, or original hash to verify from? if they are both coming from the server, along with the code which processes them, then if the server is compromised, so are you.
thankfully browsers give alot of crypto API lately (as discussed in your link)
but you still need at minimum a secure key, a hash and trusted code to verify the code the server serves you. there are ofc solutions to this problem, but if the server is unstrusted, you absolutely can’t get it from them, which means you have to get it from somewhere else (that you trust).
-GIMP is freeware.
did you source that from the GIMP documentation? because it very much appears you didn’t. (please link to the direct quote if i’m wrong).
in contrast my quote comes directly from page 4 of their own PDF User Manual which very clearly states:
The GIMP is not freeware
personally i’ll go with what GIMP says in their own manual. you’re welcome to believe whatever thing you wish - enjoy.
edit: it just occurred to me you may not be a native english speaker, in which case i apologise. “typically not” means it usually doesn’t happen.
For anyone who’s wondering (from the GIMP manual)
The GIMP is not freeware
GIMP er ikkje såkalla “freeware”
El GIMP no es freeware
GIMP non è freeware
GIMP n’est pas un freeware
Thanks for the distinctions and links to the other good discussions you’ve started!
For the invasive bits that are included, it’s easy enough for GrapheneOS to look over the incremental updates in Android and remove the bits that they don’t like.
That’s my approximate take as well, but it wasn’t quite what I was getting at.
What I meant is, to ask ourselves why is that the case? A LOT of it is because google wills it to be so.
Not only in terms of keeping it open, but also in terms of making it easy or difficult - it’s almost entirely up to google how easy or hard it’s going to be. Right now we’re all reasonably assuming they have no current serious incentives to change their mind. After all, why would they? The miniscule % of users who go to the effort of installing privacy enhanced versions of chromium (or android based os), are a tiny drop in the ocean compared to the vast majority of users running vanilla and probably never even heard of privacy enhanced versions.
when you feel up to reading the word after “typically” feel free to modify the attitude
For science, medical and engineering degrees, online tuition is just going to produce people vastly underprepared for work in anything that requires the skills & knowledge the degree is meant to provide
excellent writeup with some high quality referencing.
minor quibble
Firefox is insecure
i’m not sure many people would disagree with you that FF is less secure than Chromium (hardly a surprise given the disparity in their budgets and resources)
though i’m not sure it’s fair to say FF is insecure if we are by comparison inferring Chromium is secure? ofc Chromium is more secure than FF, as your reference shows.
another minor quibble
projects like linux-libre and Libreboot are worse for security than their counterparts (see coreboot)
does this read like coreboot is proprietary? isn’t it GPL2? i might’ve misunderstood something.
you make some great points about open vs closed source vs proprietary etc. again, it shouldn’t surprise us that many proprietary projects or Global500 funded opensource projects, with considerably greater access to resources, often arrive at more robust solutions.
i definitely agree you made a good case for the currently available community privacy enhanced versions based on open source projects from highly commercial entities (Chromium->Vanadium, Android/Pixel->GrapheneOS) etc. something i think to note here is that without these base projects actually being opensource, i’m not sure eg. the graphene team would’ve been able to achieve the technical goals in the time they have, and likely with even less success legally.
so in essence, in the current forms at least, we have to make some kind of compromise, choosing between something we know is technically more robust and then needing to blindly trust the organisation’s (likely malicious) incentives. therefore as you identify, obviously the best answer is to privacy enhance the project, which does then involve some semi-blind trusting the extent of the privacy enhancement process - assuming good faith in the organisation providing the privacy enhancement: there is still an implicit arms race where privacy corroding features might be implemented at various layers and degrees of opacity vs the inevitably less resourced team trying to counter them.
is there some additional semi-blind ‘faith’ we’re also employing where we are probably assuming the corporate entity currently has little financial incentive in undermining the opensource base project because they can simply bolt on whatever nastiness they want downstream? it’s probably not a bad assumption overall, though i’m often wondering how long that will remain the case.
and ofc on the other hand, we have organisations who’s motivation we supposedly trust (mostly…for now), but we know we have to make a compromise on the technical robustness. eg. while FF lags behind the latest hardening methods, it’s somewhat visible to the dedicated user where they stand from a technical perspective (it’s all documented, somewhere). so then the blind trust is in the purity of the organisation’s incentives, which is where i think the political-motivated wilfully-technically-ignorant mindset can sometimes step in. meanwhile mozilla’s credibility will likely continue to be gradually eroded, unless we as a community step up and fund them sufficiently. and even then, who knows.
there’s certainly no clear single answer for every person’s use-case, and i think you did a great job delineating the different camps. just wanted to add some discussion. i doubt i’m as up to date on these facets as OP, so welcome your thoughts.
I’m sick of privacy being at odds with security
fucking well said.
and they’re using our retirement money to do it
what a fucked timeline
browsers turning off specific extensions which protect us.
they shouldn’t even have a horse in this race. i mean we know why they do, but damn is it completely insane.
what’s also fucked is how normalised this is becoming.
all of that said, edge who?
our sensory capabilities are probably better than you think
however good our current capabilities are, it’s not exactly reasonable to think we’re at the apex. we don’t know everything - perhaps we never will, but even if we do it’ll surely be in 100, 1,000 or 10,000 years, rather than 10 years.
i’m not aware of any sound argument that the final paradigm in sensing capability has already happened.
there is really no scenario where this logic works
assuming you mean there’s no known scenario where this logic works? then yes, that’s the point - we currently don’t know.
this is asklemmy not a scientific journal. there can be value or fun in throwing ideas around about the limits of what we do know, or helping op improve their discussion, rather than shit on it. afaict they’ve made clear elsewhere in this thread they’re just throwing ideas around & not married to any of it.
not defending all op’s claims, but…
other cryptids
some cryptids are real. for example in the past 40 years, giant squid have quite literally moved from the pages of ‘fun’ ghosts and cryptid books into scientific journals. and this process has repeated many times throughout history with other animals.
everyone in here gleefully shitting on op (in a rather unfriendly fashion btw)
getting hung up on the 1:99 thing, when what they actually said was
As long as the percentage is not 100%
obviously i’m not saying op has presented firm evidence of the supernatural. but the irony of supposedly espousing the scientific method, while completely ignoring the critical part of op’s argument.
who here is claiming to know 100.000000% of all supernatural evidence is absolutely disproven? that would be an unscientific claim to make, so why infer it?
is the remaining 10-x % guaranteed “proof” of ghosts/aliens? imo no, but it isn’t unreasonable to consider it may suggest something beyond our current reproducible measurement capacity (which has eg. historically been filed under “ghosts”). therefore the ridicule in this thread - rather than friendly/educational discussion - is quite disappointing.
it’s not exactly reasonable to assume we’re at the apex of human sensory capability, history is full of this kind of misplaced hubris.
until the invention of the microscope, germs were just “vibes” and “spirits”
Modern pedon is a Grade A bootlicker that thinks he is part of the club.
/thread
edit: /world
imo
Main Points
-
most people (including most men) do not actually give a fuck.
-
a tiny insignificant group mumbling in a dark corner probably do care, but noone should give a shit or listen to them.
-
instead their voice is amplified in social/legacy media as a typical divide and conquer tactic (men vs women is ‘powerful’ as its half the planet vs the other half).
-
unoriginal drones parrot those amplifications because they’ll get angry about whatever their screens tell them to this week.
-
society has leaned male-dominant for too long, so genuine efforts to be fair are perceived by some idiots (see #2,#4) as “unfair”.
-
corporations don’t actually give a shit about equality, so their maliciously half-arsed pretense at fairness rings hollow, adding more fuel to the flames.
Bonus
If you want to know more about this problem in general, see the Bechdel test, once you see it, you can’t unsee it everywhere you go:
The test asks whether a work features at least two female characters who have a conversation about something other than a man.
-
i think they mostly mean the ones in the middle
https://smartcdn.gprod.postmedia.digital/nexus/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/0703-dg-benches.jpeg
ah fair enough. i think that was the initial confusion from myself and perhaps the other user in this discussion. i didn’t realise your use cases.
it’s always a fun topic to discuss and got me thinking about some new ideas :)