DreamlandLividity @ DreamlandLividity @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

586

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's not about being pixel specific. They built high security OS that uses HW components to deliver that high security. It can't be delivered without them. These components are not google patented nor does GrapheneOS demands they use the exact pixel ones. GrapheneOS just refuses to lower security to support phones that lack these components, because manufacturers wanted to save maybe a $1 per phone by not including them at the expense of user security.

Then let us know when they are solved. Until then, I have a lot more hope in matrix than XMPP. They at least seems to be making progress in the right direction, although they are not there yet either.

Signal remains the best option for now.

So much cope you didn't even notice no one mentioned matrix. We are comparing XMPP with Signal.

Your reasoning would hold up if 80% of xmpp wasn't running on Conversations or forks of it

Also, you really think saying only 20% of your chats are insecure is somehow making it better?

The encryption being crap really does not depend on the threat model. Sure, in some threat models you may not need e2ee at all but in that case, what's wrong with WhatsApp?

The issue with XMPP is that security really was an afterthought. Not only is e2ee an optional extension, but there are actually 2 incompatible extensions, each with multiple versions. Then you have some clients not implementing either, some clients implementing the older, less secure one. Some implement the newer one but older version of the spec with known issues. And of course, the few clients that implement it well become incompatible with other clients that don't if you enable e2ee, so it is disabled by default.

That is all before you start looking into security audits or metadata harvesting.

Tell me you don't know anything about security without telling me you don't know anything about security.

Yes. Out of the federal military branches, only the coast guard can: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

What you say and what I say don't contradict. ICE is already acting as if martial law was declared, ignoring due process/habeas corpus. If Trump declared martial law, those that still follow laws, constitution and the courts would keep doing so and those that follow Trumps orders above all would also keep doing so. There would be no substantial change.

There would probably be no consequences for him, but the "martial law" would probably be ignored and not happen.

As I understand it, in the US, martial law can only legally happen if the courts are unable to function. Basically, if things are so bad courts are unable to judge people, you let the military judge them.

There are: https://nimbusdata.com/products/exadrive/specifications/

They are just not listed in shops for poor people. (joking)

If you think having a force reset trigger is the same as having a full auto rifle, maybe you shouldn't comment on gun legislation.

Again, the issue is that once you burn fossil fuel, you are not turning it into fossil fuel in any meaningful amount of time.

On the other hand, let's say that a field used for producing plants for biofuel does not capture any carbon at all to simplify. So deforesting an area releases all the carbon a forest held. The difference is that the fossil fuel gives you energy one time, while the field produces it yearly. We need energy yearly. So if you deforest an area for biofuel, you release CO2 from deforestation but all the CO2 released in the future is what was recaptured by the plants. It is one time CO2 release for perpetual energy delivery. If you go with fossil fuels, you will keep burning more and more every year until it is much worse than deforesting an area.

So reforesting can capture CO2 already released, but that only offsets fossil fuels for some period of time. Even if you cover the whole planet in forests, there is a finite amount of fossil fuels you can burn before it is negated. That is why eliminating fossil fuel use, and quickly, is far more important than protecting forests. Once you burn fossil fuel, you can't recapture it into fossil fuel and would have to increase fores area permanently to compensate.

the alternative to burning biomass would need to have very high emissions in order to come out ahead.

Not really, that's the point. Soil has a max capacity of carbon it will hold. Just like biomass. So even if the fossil fuels release tiny amount of CO2, they release it continually vs deforestation releasing it one time. The only thing that changes is how long it takes for biomass to break even. But after thousands of years, the one time big release will always turn out better than continual small releases.

Of course, avoiding both deforestation and fossil fuels is even better.

It is superior if letting the forest grow means using fossil fuels. That was the point of my comment. It releases CO2, but only once and then is sustainable without additional CO2.

Of course, having the forest and e.g. nuclear power would be even better but that does not work very well for mobile applications, such as vehicles.

Not really. Sure, China is able to make unpopular decisions better then democracies, but that makes them inefficient in different directions. E.g. high speed rail in areas where it is not needed but greatly lacking freight trains. Or their housing bubble.

You're defending him—intentionally or not—because you're giving legitimacy to the idea that, somehow, the party that kicked him out is in the wrong.

Yeah, I am tired of this shit. My entire comment repeatedly spells out that criticizing one party does not mean supporting the other. Both FDO and Vaxry can be in the wrong. If you can't even comprehend that, there is nothing else to talk about.

First off, I don't know anything about Vaxry or the Hyperland community, so I am definitely not defending him or implying it is not bad or anything of the sorts. I am saying the public reasoning for the ban is manufactured BS, and I am pretty sure that is because it is hard to call yourself "free" anything if you want to police peoples behavior unrelated to your project.

If you think projects should do such policing, that's fine. It even makes sense, if you ignore the potential for misuse. But they certainly shouldn't advertise themselves as free. It's the hypocrisy of trying to do both by manufacturing an excuse I am calling out.

As for the rest of what you write, I feel it all comes to the same unhinged idea that because someone is a bad person, everything they touch, create or any person engaging with them is also bad.

I dislike Brave, and it's founder. Doesn't mean everything Brave does is bad or can't be promoted by me as good. If you choose to not do it for your personal beliefs, that is fine. But the idea that I am not allowed to praise Brave browser features or other actions because of something unrelated its founder did or said is ridiculous.

EDIT: Regarding your edit, yes. I criticize parts of DEI or stupid anti-Trump arguments. That's the whole point. Stupid arguments are stupid even if a good person is making them and good arguments are good, even if evil person like Trump makes them. Parts of DEI can be bad, even though discrimination is also bad. The world is not black and white.

EDIT2: Here is my post on DEI if anyone wants to read it and decide for themselves whether it is reasonable criticism or not.

So it's not just the PR, it is also him interacting with "the wrong people". Because it is so unthinkable to post about another browser developer while developing a browser regardless of politics. Idk anything about Andreas Kling, maybe he is a bad person, but the reasoning in your comment seems unhinged to me.

PS: Maybe off topic, but FDO reasoning for banning Vaxry is also wild. FDO admits he never broke the CoC on their platforms, then the CoC enforcement sends him a threatening email demanding he moderates his community differently and when he pushes back and says he will ignore this person sending unsolicited threatening emails, that is a reason to ban him. Because somehow this unsolicited threatening email is somehow considered part of FDO. Literally manufacturing a cause....

No offense, but I seriously doubt you've done any of such analysis.

Well, if you don't believe me, go do the analysis for yourself then. Unless you would rather live in a fairytale than look at your beliefs critically.

Part of the reason you know USSR sucked is because they had to do it publicly.

Yeah, why not show complete ignorance of history. Not as if USSR literally left people in Chernobyl to be irradiated in order to avoid admitting what they caused until western media exposed them. But it is capitalism that keeps things secret, that is why you know about those things from news and internet.

You wrote you're supporting of the kind of socialism a lot of socialists would consider capitalism

No I didn't. I wrote that until someone shows me a version of socialism that works, I will support capitalism.

So instead we should support a system where political motives are commodified and corporations sell the power to influence the political landscape...

You ever heard of the concept of lesser evil? That is what I consider capitalistic social democracy. If you find an even less evil system that does not just run on hopes and dreams, I will switch my support to that one. But right now, every system I have heard of or thought of would end up being even worse in practice.

Once you come up with an economic model that both works economically and does not hand power to elected officials or some other such group,

I literally wrote that I would support some form of socialism. That is not sarcasm. I am not talking about one example, I am talking about economic and game theory principles.

If you analyse the common forms of socialism using those, it is obvious it will always devolve into authoritarianism. The incentives between leaders and the population are too misaligned and the power is too concentrated.

Comparing all capitalism to the US is the same as comparing all socialism to the Soviet Union.

There are plenty social democracies in Europe. I advocate for spreading those and making incremental improvements to them where appropriate.