michaelrose @ michaelrose @lemmy.ml

Posts

0

Comments

163

Joined

2 yr. ago

China is a market economy with strong central controls it mixes market and planning as I have suggested.

You don't think Stalins Russia was an autocratic regime? He murdered to get and keep power and was murdered in turn. Their successor state is run by a dictator! There is no dictatorship of the proletariat forthcoming. The withering away of the state is fiction.

It is definitively proved that neither planning nor pure markets fucking work. You need to plan and or regulate the things that markets are known to fail on and let the market allocate the resources not needed to provide basic or societal needs. This isn't rocket science or credibly in dispute. We know what in broad strokes actually works.

Socialism and communism aren't really the same thing and entirely aside from what sham wig the USSR put on its corrupt kleptocracy it was a brutal dictatorship that murdered 10s of millions and created mass starvation. How can you have socialism/communism if you replace the market with decisions dictated by some asshole that you all didn't pick and can't remove if he fucks up. I don't see how you can possibly have socialism or indeed ANY economic system without a functional democracy. I also don't understand how you can look at the history of the USSR and call THAT clusterfuck success.

Ah yes security brought to you by the same folks who brought you "bypass encryption by holding down the enter key" and "name your user 0day to get root access"

It's like putting security cams and interior locks all over your house instead of locking the front door. If your storage can't be read without the passphrase then NOTHING can fail in such a way as to provide access. Simplicity and obvious correctness have virtues.

There isn't much reason to use anything other than FDE with a sufficient passphrase, auto login so the user doesn't have to type two distinct passwords, and go luks suspends to evict key from memory on suspend.

Boot up enter the passphrase -> see your desktop -> close the lid -> open the lid -> enter your passphrase

You can google lets drop all the crap you think you understand but don't use simple logic. Unencrypted data isn't secure against physical access. If your data is automatically unencrypted without benefit of entering a passphrase then its not actually secure. There's no free lunch.

Yes because having firefox in /usr/bin/firefox is trashy and disorganized compared to having it in /home/$USER/.var/app/flatpak/app/org.mozilla.firefox/x86_64/stable/6b73214102d2c232a520923fc04166aed89fa52c392b4173ad77d44c1a8fb51b/files/bin/firefox and running firefox is so much more gross than flatpak run org.mozilla.firefox

Can you like actually hear yourself?

On most systems you can press a hotkey in grub to edit the Linux command line that will be booted and in about 7 keystrokes gain access to any unlocked filesystem. Asking how you can break into a system you physically control is like asking how many ways you could break into a house supposing you had an hour alone with a crowbar the answers are legion. No machine in someone else's hand which is unlocked can possibly be deemed secure.

Even dumber no installer will create such an insecure configuration because the people that design Linux installers are smarter than you.

Would you like to talk about the inherent limitations of a planned economy vs a free market or the epic level of corruption that is evident to this day.

It also meets any reasonable definition of bloat

You aren't actually asking to how to bypass encryption because the key is already in memory. You are asking about the much simpler task of compromising a computer with physical access to same. Depending on configuration this can be as ridiculous as killing the lockscreen process or as hard as physically opening the case chilling the contents of ram enough that data survives transfer to different physical hardware. See also the massive attack surface of the USB stack.

I take 3 seconds looking at what's updating after I clicked update knowing its incredibly unlikely that anything will break and if it did it would take 30 second to reboot into the snapshot that was automatically created by running the update script.

If package foo requires runtimev1 and bar requires runtimev1.1 you will end up with installing v1 and v1.1 with similar but not identical files and if another package requires 1.2 and 1.3 and 2.0 then 2.1 eventually you will have a whole lot of libsomethingorother.

I have used countless distros over 20 years including Arch although right now I'm primarily running Void on my personal computers. "Bloating up the package database" remains a meaningless factor because it doesn't bear meaningfully on real world performance or experience. Your computer doesn't break more or perform worse because you installed more software because this isn't windows.

Normal systems that you don't do something extremely creative with don't normally develop conflicts because the packages are literally all designed to work with the same version.

The words " bloating up your actual system and package database." don't actually mean anything except that you don't know what any of those words mean together.

The USSR was famously corrupt and a massive failure on the overall besides. This is not the example you are looking for.

I have 2 flatpaks installed and I already have duplicated runtimes not to speak of the deps themselves that are built into the apps. There is definitely duplication.

You have a competent grasp of the situation

This is a common misunderstanding insofar as how encryption works. You can't flick a bit and TURN your storage unencrypted nor can you plausibly make your computer obey restrictions.

If your storage is encrypted it remains encrypted always including the file you have open right now. Your takes a plausibly length usable string and uses it to compute or retrieve the long binary number actually needed to decrypt your files. This number is stored in memory such that encrypted files can be decrypted when read into memory.

Once that key is loaded in memory anyone with 10 minutes and access to google could trivially unlock your computer in several different ways. It is virtually exactly like having no security whatsoever.

If you don't actually enter a passphrase to unlock you have no meaningful security against anything but the most casual unmotivated snooping.

Your little sister might not be motivated enough to read your diary but the dipstick that stole your laptop will definitely be spending your money.

How do you keep the singular state bank from being captured and corrupted inside of 2 years?