gnull

It's not a bad strategy per se. As the parent comment said, this could be done to limit the choices that the future government of Russia will have. And in the present, this fact being public could be used by some political forces to create extra leverage.

There was a good game-theoretic example explaining why limiting your own future choices can be a good strategy which I can't find right now. So I'll try to re-tell it. Suppose you want to buy X, and you're willing to pay as much as $20 for it. You know that the seller is likely to agree even on $10, and they know that they know that you're likely to pay more for it. So for both of you the bargain happening is better than not happening as long as the price is within the range $10-20, but both of you know that both of you know this, so you both will be trying to squeeze as much as you can out of this deal.

In this case, artificially reducing your own capabilities and making it public can help convince the seller to sell it to you for less than $20. Say, you can sign an agreement with a third party saying that if you pay more than $10 for X, you will have to pay 11$ more to the third party. Now your possibilities are limited and you can't buy X for $20 anymore, so the only acceptable price for you is 10$, to which the seller has to agree because they know that otherwise the deal won't happen and they will lose.

It gets funnier if both you and seller sign these kind of contracts quietly, and then announce together making the deal impossible.

First of all, it's not bad president against good protestors. There were actually two things going on on the streets: peaceful protestors with political and economical demands, and armed organized bandits/terrorists wreaking havoc and destabilising situation as much as they could.

The bandits were killing the police (also going to hospitals to finish any wounded police officers they could find), storming jails trying to set criminals free, burning government buildings, they gave fake calls to firefighters and killed the crews when those arrived.

I leave it to you to read up on who could be orchestrating the bandits. I suggest you focus on local (CIS-based, Russian speaking) news media and telegram channels for that. But one of the important hypotheses is that it was all made by the forces in power opposing Tokaev (the president), and he called the Russians because he didn't trust his own men's loyalty. Russians were protecting some critical infrastructure (which never got attacked, so they didn't fight anyone) including president's headquarters (which was very, very far from the core of riots).

People who started the violence were clearly trained for this and very organized, they were shooting police on the streets, looting firearm stores, giving away firearms to random people to encourage chaos. Also the government ordered police and SWAT teams to leave the cities for 1-2 days which hints at some officials being involved in this.

Russian army wasn't involved in fighting on the streets and certainly wasn't "killing" anyone. Russians were invited mainly for a political and morale effect.

I don't know what the top commenter was reading to get these conclusions, but they are clearly not representing any of the mainstream hypotheses explaining the events. I'm saying this as someone who has his family there when it happened and followed every single piece of news from there full time. And after everything was over I went there and talk to some people who witnessed the events.

Although if I connect to something that's 20ms away (within the same country), the experience is really good.

  ssh -X remote firefox https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqZsoesa55w

And I bet part of the problem is due to Youtube (and browser generally) involving some non-trivial drawing technologies, rendering a video is not like showing a GTK interface.

You could also use something like Zerotier-one to recover from network being shortly disrupted. This service connects your machines into a virtual network with static IPs, so the IP addresses through which your machines talk will stay the same and TCP connections will recover and ssh will keep working if a device briefly goes offline.

I'm double checking it right now using a remove machine a few blocks away from my home. Running `ssh -X remote firefox` lags a lot worse than `waypipe ssh remote firefox`. The latter feels almost native, very responsive.

So no, I don't think we are giving up a lot. X11 was designed to work over network, but it never really did.

Verbatim copying is good for bringing your attention to the material, it helps you notice more, and doesn't let you mind wander. While summarizing is good for cementing what you've noticed and learned.

For example, if I try to copy part of text I see the writing techniques used there a lot better. I don't see how summarizing can give me the same effect.

I'm almost ready to try both techniques simultaneously, although it seems like an overkill, so much writing.

> This right here is the level of urgency that will reach its goal in 2-4 generations

"2-4 generations from now" is the exact level of urgency to reach the goal in 2-4 generations. Inflating the urgency of things spends the precious trust people have in you, and harms our decisions by making us miss some things that actually are more urgent. To list a few global things that are more urgent than this discrimination issue of rich Western countries: global warming, sustainability, poverty in other countries, war in Ukraine and other military conflicts, poor education (yes, I'm looking at you, US), autocratic dictatorships all over the world.

We wait.

I don't understand why people want these issues to be resolved here and now. Society and culture take decades to change, that's natural, and shortcuts—however tempting they might be—often come at a cost of something else.

The conditions of these oppressed groups are not terribly bad, compared to what was going on with people in general throughout history. An average man who lived in Europe 100 years ago would gladly change places with an average black woman living in Europe nowadays. And even lots of white people from poorer countries nowadays have a lower standard of living than black people in developed countries. I speak from my own experience, as a person who grew up in a countryside where people don't have running water in their homes and toilet is just a hole in the ground; then I come to Northern Europe for work and hear how hard it is to be a black person here and that I'm apparently privileged because I'm white.

My point is, current conditions of people in developed countries are not so bad that it requires urgent measures to improve. If solving it takes 2-4 generations of people living in these conditions, it's not that much of a tragedy, and I don't think we must urgently start dumping resources to speed it up.

You are forgetting about functional programming, which has no assignments, only bindings that are immutable — just like in math. And your program is one big expression that is being reduced by a computer.

I wonder what would happen if your friend started with, say, Haskell.

He was doing it for his grandfather, a wheelchair user, who was nearby. The grandpa couldn't use the ATM himself because there was no wheelchair ramp. Seeing the teen's failing attempts he started asking passerby for help.

My takeaway from this story: we need more wheelchair ramps, not touchscreens.

Would that be OK to directly propose that? Something like, “I think you're wrong. Let's take this to our superiors or get a third opinion.”

The company is your employer, not the manager. If you see that the orders you get are harmful, it's your responsibility to raise an alarm.

And I don't see the things the manager says as directions. He's trying to make his wishes sound as if the team and the post author decided to do it themselves. Total coward.

EDIT: The employee can't be responsible for disobeying orders if he got no orders.

> Maybe the intern can learn the ropes

This is what I hate about work environments that pretend to be all caring and non-hierarchical. Like the author, I worked in Sweden and I've seen examples of it. They avoid specifying clear rules for where one's responsibilities end, and who gives orders to whom, because that would be oppressive — and oh, we're too nice for that and we don't want people to feel bad. But the hierarchies and oppression don't go away if you pretend they don't exist. They're still there, they just take a new, less explicit form and give freedom for abusers to play around the grey areas.

What I see the manager doing here is trying to push for some decisions without making it explicit and taking responsibility for it. I find it cowardly and harmful. People who are not interested or are unable to play with this niceness game are the ones who will lose in it.

In a healthy system, a manager could just say, “we use product X, that's my decision” or “no, I decided we're not spending money on that” — optionally, motivating the decision. And later be held accountable for it. In a system too focused on being nice and not making people feel bad, a manager does not want to look oppressive and will have to make it look like this was everyone's idea, or choose a phrasing that will not directly say what the quotes say, but kind of imply that (“What do you think? Should we use product X? It's team's decision”. “Maybe we can go without spending money on that”).

> it is also the Spotify convention of the right way to do things

Another thing people of this sort do is insisting on their opinion by saying things with a tone of a convincing argument but with words that don't really address the point (“Didn't we agree on this already?”). If the other side is less experienced in fiddling with politeness, they may feel like they are being too persistent and mean objecting for 5th time. Telling this sort of abusive manager they are talking nonsense would sound mean (sometimes this would be the right thing to say though), and playing on their level is doomed to lose.

Direct confrontation is normal, giving orders is normal, telling people they are/were wrong is normal. These should be acknowledged and regulated, not ignored.

The fact that it detects one byte being modified means nothing.

The password managers don't protect against a malware running on your laptop with root privileges and attaching to your processes. They protect against someone taking the disk out of your computer and trying to extract the passwords.

2. How is this “regular integrity protection” defined formally?

And change all your passwords as well? I don't think you can import your passwords into a new manager if the old one gets broken.

Replacing is one way of modifying. If the passwords storage is authenticated, it can't be replaced.

(An attacker could probably replace the storage with its older version. Unless there's an extra mechanism in place to counter that — this highly depends on the concrete setting.)

Make sure you understand how exactly it encrypts your data, and what are the things that are still exposed by it.

Recently it was producing errors if the mime-type of an email attachment is quoted. This is something very rare, but some mailers do that. The issue was fixed within a couple of days after my report.

Aerc has filters and builtin terminal support. This allows cool syntax highlighting for displayed emails and also support for previewing unusual formats. Aerc has well-made multiple accounts support and tabs out of the box, while with Mutt I had to keep two separate muttrc files for my two accounts and create bash alias for them. Aerc can filter the emails in the current folder and show only the ones that match an expression, I could never do that it Mutt. And overall, it just feels more modern and reasonable, even its config file format feels better.

I had a few things I found weird in mutt and never could fix them through config. For example, PgDown in Mutt goes to next email when I reach the bottom of the current one. Or deleting email keeps it displayed in the list (making you spam $ after each deletion) but doesn't allow navigating to it to undelete (Mutt devs want me to select emails to undelete using regexp? seriously?). I kept having wtf moments like this with Mutt all the time, I almost never have them with Aerc.

Some things still need polishing in Aerc, but it's improving fast.