amigan @ theamigan @lemmy.dynatron.me

i hate it.

---

Read more

Posts

4

Comments

259

Joined

2 yr. ago

I fail to see your point. Of course it is not merely "encrypting your shit." But a constructed language is more dangerous than using existing crypto. It is subject to frequency analysis and many other analyses. And aside from the point of "if you can memorize it's flawed," you might as well just use a one time pad at that point. Generally, if you are not a cryptographer and you design a cipher, that cipher will be flawed. The human element of being suspicious of a surveillance state is certainly valid, and you are right, it is not something I generally worry about on a daily basis, mostly because I am not presently engaged in any such high risk activities. I am saying nothing about this not changing and never becoming something to worry about, but you bet your ass I will be employing cryptography designed by experts if that day comes.

And anyway, all my webservers are https, I am an avid user of gpg, and I've been working in "cybersecurity" for over a decade now, so I like to think my opsec isn't total garbage. After all the Snowden stuff came out, it just reinforced my existing practices and birthed new ones. Also, wireguard is the shit.

In the context of modern communications security, yes, it is absolutely fucking loony. You have encryption available to you, as a private citizen, that is better than any crypto any state actor had in WWII and for the price of $0. The Navajo codetalkers were employed because that was the best way to solve the problem at the time. It is no longer.

Then why are you wasting your and our time with this ridiculous thread? This is a solved problem, it's called encryption. But you continuously reject people's suggestions in favor of your own loony proposition.

Lol, thinking you're important enough for any of this. You sound like a teenager in his mom's basement who got way too high. I bet dollars to donuts you're in the US.

If gpg isn't good enough for your use case, you're either protecting nuclear secrets or indeed a total cuckoo clock.

Basically. In Sony's case, they were clearly afraid of homebrew games, but I still can't imagine any other rationale than what you said for killing the feature, especially as neutered as it was. It definitely taught me a lesson about buying products that can't be kill switched after purchase. The US Air Force even built a cluster of 1700 PS3s that relied on this feature. I'm sure they weren't routable to the internet to get updates though.

My last straw was when they killed OtherOS on the PS3, which was very much part of my purchasing decision. Sure, it was kneecapped from the start (Linux still ran under the hypervisor, could not use the GPU, and was only given 6 Cell cores), but it was there. At least I got a $60 check from the class action settlement!

Bunch of cocksuckers. I have not purchased a Sony product since.

Intesa customers also complain about not having computer access, but only via their mobile phones

I would also be fucking livid at this. It's bad enough when Google Pay did it, but a full-fat bank? Fuck outta here.

Sure, hence I said "hardly" rather than "is not." None of this excludes QUIC from also being transport layer.

Yeah. Wifi has more latency than switched ethernet on average (and really bad worst case latency since it is a shared medium, subject to neighboring RF interference that might not even be from the network, and radios try to handle retransmits on their own).

UDP is hardly a transport layer protocol. It basically adds port numbers and checksum to IP. QUIC is usually described as transport layer since it provides flow/congestion control functionality usually ascribed to transport layer.

There are a lot of variables that could cause that situation. Were both machines on the same physical link (ethernet vs wifi)? Changes to their RTT could influence it. The only thing I could really add is that you have found the reason QoS mechanisms exist, lol.

edit: I guess I can add this: if computer 1's download was from a host that has longer total round trip latency than computer 2's download, computer 2's download will return ACKs quicker and thus get PSH packets with data quicker than computer 1. This will lead to it filling available bandwidth more easily.

There is no allocation if you haven't configured any. Whoever can get their shit stuffed in the pipe first wins. From that point, any bottlenecks either FIFO to/from buffers, or if buffers fill up, just start taildropping. TCP (and other transport layer protocols like QUIC) implementations then have a sliding window algorithm that figures out the optimal amount of data to keep in flight at one time based on RTT and any packet loss caused by taildrops along the way.

I mean it's clear he had accepted that already, what with all the waffling and basically being forced to complete the transaction.

TLB will always be translation lookaside buffer, sorry.

Yup. Just another greedy company trying to instill the warm and fuzzies in prospective customers and benefit from unpaid members of the public fixing their bugs with the "open source" branding.

Good. Too bad it will never happen in the US. I'm sick and tired of these shitboxes that destroy visibility and kill people, always being operated by someone clueless (and usually single occupancy).

The literature about this subject is all over the place. I definitely see no consensus that there have only been two. Maybe two that are very good examples, but the general theme is that whenever he speaks of faith or morals he is infallible. Oh well, you could spend a lifetime trying to logic the illogical.

...We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable.

Sounds pretty cut and dried to me. It applies whenever the Pope speaks ex cathedra, and the bishop was directly contravening such doctrine regarding faith or morals.

Indeed. I was trying to (probably too obliquely) highlight how futile it is to inject any logic or reasoning into the situation, given the subject matter.