You should only do that if you live at the landfill.
877 karma · joined November 5, 2023
All phones are surveillance devices.
Hello, you've been (semi-randomly) selected to take a CAPTCHA to validate your requests. Please complete it below and hit the button!
Press to validate
No thanks.
If you charge enough, the spammers become valuable customers. Of course they tend to leave before that point, but you don't really care if they leave or stay; you make money either way.
Value for value.
I'm sure those TSVs connect to a huge array of switching power supplies, so the 24kW doesn't travel very far at such low voltages.
This does not render at all without javascript.
Not an alternative.
Neither is a replacement for the other; they're orthogonal. They solve different problems.
You should use both of them.
From the CurveDNS link you posted:
> CurveDNS supports:
> Forwarding of regular (non-protected) DNS packets
These are being sent in the clear, and your ISP is most certainly logging them. You should tell your CurveDNS resolver to use a (local) dnscrypt-proxy instance for resolving "regular (non-protected)" queries that don't have DNSCurve entries. Then you have the best of both worlds!
> The question I have for DNSCrypt fans is _why_ AFAICT no authoritative DNS servers are using it
Because DNSCrypt is only for querying recursive resolvers!
... and DNSCurve is only for querying authoritative resolvers.
DNSCrypt is link-level encryption between you and your recursive resolver (the thing you put in /etc/resolv.conf).
DNSCurve is link-level encryption between your recursive resolver (or you) and the authoritative resolver (like this one, which is authoritative for cr.yp.to):
$ dig -t NS yp.to
yp.to. 3600 IN NS uz5jmyqz3gz2bhnuzg0rr0cml9u8pntyhn2jhtqn04yt3sm5h235c1.yp.to.
It keeps Mullvad from intercepting DNS traffic: if you send cleartext DNS requests on UDP/53 through their network, they intercept it. But DNSCrypt packets are encrypted and authenticated, so they can't.
Bonus: DNSCrypt is still packet-based like UDP, so none of the downsides of DoH: no 3-way handshake, no connection pooling, no stream correlation attacks.
> It's worth noting that all our VPN servers hijack calls to our public DNS server and that the DNS requests are processed on a local non-logging DNS server installed on that VPN server.
https://mullvad.net/en/help/all-about-dns-servers-and-privac...
https://old.reddit.com/r/mullvadvpn/comments/invjgp/how_and_...
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/epchd704.pdf
You'll lose your audit.
Common control and beneficial ownership have been well-established principles in the US for over 50 years.
In any event, the whole thing went down and was determined long before Reagan took office. The case was filed under the Ford administration and prosecuted mainly by the Carter administration. By the time Reagan took office the case had been in progress for nearly a decade, and he had been president for barely a year when the final decision was handed down.
OP just has so much confused about this chapter of history.
From the very same link you posted: only laundering "the proceeds of specified unlawful activity" is illegal.
It is totally 100% legal to launder clean money.
Fincen, obviously.
Their purpose for existing is to be the giant mother-of-all surveillance warehouses. Collect it all.
That's some pretty baldfaced revisionism you've got going on there.
They were ordered to do this by a court: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=120938923478579...
> the government liking gigantic corporations is what makes it hard — the corporation (and, it is feared, AI) convinces the people
The corporations didn't convince the people. They didn't have to. They convinced the government, which was already acting contrary to our interests.
There's a tendency to assume that just because we run an election every few years, the government is axiomatically aligned with our interests. This simply isn't true, and assuming that it is true blinds people to what's really going on. Total unwillingness to even consider a scale tax is the second-best example I've found of this axiom being bogus. The best one, though, is term limits for legislators: a shocking 87% of all US voters want those.
Once you have an institution as powerful as the government out of your control the alignment problem becomes infinitely more difficult. "Hack the humans" is no longer the easiest path of escape. In fact the easiest path of escape might not involve "hacking" at all.
No, it's a very easy alignment problem: just impose a tax on size.
That which you tax, you get less of. The tax is revenue-neutral, so it doesn't affect the government budget one way or the other. Full details here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39235533 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39236786
The problem is that the government likes gigantic corporations. Big Government and Big Business love each other. Fixing that is the alignment and agency problem. It's much easier for bureaucrats to exert control over a highly concentrated industry whose players can be "invited to the table". Details: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28588457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39162088
The hard alignment problem is making regulators want their own job to be herding 10,000 cats instead of 10 elephants. Everybody wants to be like the FAA regulating Boeing; nobody wants to be the USDA dealing with a million unruly and independent-minded farmers.
ICANN is a cancer.
And, nonlinear optical media do involve electrons -- that was precisely my point. And that's why those "optical" computers perform no better than electrical computers: because they are in fact electrical computers that use photons for communication, not for computation.
But using photons for communication is nothing new, we've been doing that since the late 1970s.
What magical device do they use to take TWO separate 1-hot encoded optical signals and produce a single 1-hot output? Figure 6 just shows a black box labeled "decoder" which is never explained, anywhere.
I think this word salad^H^H^H^H^H paper might have been produced by an LLM.
I don't live anywhere near Dallas.
https://www.scenicwa.com/poi/quinault-rain-forest-worlds-lar...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_National_Park
The park is almost a million acres; it's enormous -- larger than small countries like Luxembourg. There are two entrances; most visitors go to the North entrance near Port Angeles to see mountains. If you want to see trees and beaches take the Southwest entrance at Lake Quinault instead.
I recommend the North Coast hike from La Push to Chilean Memorial. It's a multi-day hike, and you need to get a permit from the Park Service office at Lake Quinault beforehand. But it's worth it. Remember to get a copy of the tide charts so you don't get trapped by the tides.
https://www.wta.org/go-hiking/hikes/north-coast-beach-travel...
This is basically irrelevant as long as there are only a small number of gigantic providers. If the shareholders disagree with the government, the company will do what the government wants.
This all played out with crystal clarity over two decades ago, when the CEO of Qwest (then one of the five largest carriers) refused to spy for the NSA. So they threw the CEO in prison and drove the company to the edge of bankruptcy (it no longer exists).
That was the last time a "privately owned" telecom giant ever said "no" to the NSA.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/pgg7q7/the-telecom-exec-who-...
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/qwest-ceo-nsa-punished...
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-story-of-joseph-nacchio-...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30...
Yes, certainly. But it's basically one or two lines of code with zero configuration knobs:
if (ev->is_synthetic && focus_changed_since_last_nonsynthetic) return;
why should it be implemented in libinput?
Because libinput is the "narrow waist" in the input stack.
Doing this in libinput puts all the new configuration knobs, and all but one or two lines of code ("if focus changed then drop") in the one place where they can live without having to be duplicated.
Any higher up the stack and you end up replicating this functionality.
Issues would spread over two projects, instead of one and getting pushed back and forth.
I don't think so. If the problem is that a marked-as-synthetic event is/isn't being dropped when it shouldn't/should, that's the problem of some layer above libinput. Any other problem is libinput's. I know nobody wants to own these problems, but we can't make them disappear -- somebody has to own them. If they are owned at or below the libinput layer we can fix each bug once and be done. If we fix them anywhere above the libinput layer we will end up having the same bugs occur in multiple independent implementations and they will have to get fixed independently.
in my opinion it would have been better to implement it everywhere (with optional disable) instead of nowhere
I don't agree with this either. This "multiple reimplementations of the exact same thing" is becoming entrenched! We could get stuck in this situation, permanently. This isn't a question like "what should a titlebar look like" where different toolkits can legitimately have different opinions about it.
In my opinion the App layer is the wrong place
I agree.
Some part of this has to be done somewhere at-or-above the compositor layer, since those are the only layers that are aware of focus changes. Unfortunately there seems to be no traction for e.g. wayland to require that all compositors do this. So the replication gets amplified even further by pushing it up into every compositor or toolkit. That's why it's so important to limit the size of the bit that gets pushed up the stack to being two lines of code.
Perhaps a viable compromise would be to insert a new layer above libinput. For argument's sake, call it "libgesture" (*). It's responsible for consuming libinput events and emitting synthetic events like momentum scrolling. It would have exactly the same API as libinput, except events would have an additional `is_synthetic` field. I've actually built something similar to this (but at the kernel evdev level) for my own use.
Perhaps that would make everybody happy.
(*) This is unrelated to `libei` -- I have this sinking feeling that many apps (especially chromium) will reject any event that smells "emulated" to them "because muh bots" or something stupid like that. Trying to use libei for this is likely to backfire once the chromium devs decide that "emulated" means "bad for Web Environment Integrity". The indicator for gesture-synthesized events like momentum scrolling really needs to be completely separate from any marker indicating that the event was in any way emulated.*
Two nifty examples of this:
PCB manufacturers start offering FR-4 with strands of single-mode fiber embedded in it?
Please don't perpetuate the awful terminological confusion around this issue.