3 ms·

> Oh that's definitely true; though I wasn't saying bribe; Did you know those "30 under 30" lists, you have to apply to be on those. It helps if you're rich, bu

by md_ 3y ago

> Oh that's definitely true; though I wasn't saying bribe; Did you know those "30 under 30" lists, you have to apply to be on those. It helps if you're rich, but you don't technically have to pay. It's like this with a lot of media. I mean, you wrote, "From everything I personally know about the media, articles like that are usually paid for, though almost never directly by the person being profiled." This is, frankly, a stupid claim, though I think from your profile you are probably German or Austrian and thus might not really know which news outlets are reliable. As a perhaps helpful analogy, the New Yorker is roughly like Der Spiegel or Die Zeit, only more respected. (That's not to say they don't have misses; Ken Auletta's profile of Elizabeth Holmes comes to mind.) The prospect that you can pay for coverage--and as an aside, I don't think The New Yorker has ever run "30 under 30" lists--is rather laughable. > You are not, since nobody can bloody run the software themselves anyway, and the entire point is transparency. Er, what are you talking about? https://signal.org/blog/reproducible-android/ https://signal.org/blog/reproducible-android/ I don't know how to say this nicely, but your post doesn't have a strong connection to facts.

dijit 3y ago
I'm British but reside in Sweden and work for a German company, it's possible I don't know all things about American culture- I've only worked for one American company. What I'm referring to was a french company and they were talking about US papers. the 30-under-30 thing is Forbes, I have always considered them reputable, perhaps I am mistaken. The reproducible builds website; is; as previously mentioned a really nice looking page which basically says: It won't be reproducible even if you follow these steps. I literally said: "it looks good in a google search, but there is nothing of substance since they say in the article itself that it will not be reproducible", that "please don't send us messages about how it's not reproducible"; they say it's because of the shared libraries and that some parts are actually reproducible.
- md_ 3y ago
  > the 30-under-30 thing is Forbes, I have always considered them reputable, perhaps I am mistaken. No, Forbes is a shithole. https://www.entrepreneur.com/growing-a-business/did-someone-offer-to-write-about-you-in-exchange-for-money/362280 https://www.entrepreneur.com/growing-a-business/did-someone-... The New Yorker is not a shithole, and don't take money for articles. Maybe you want to, like, correct your blog post? Honestly, the claim makes you sound dumb. > The reproducible builds website; is; as previously mentioned a really nice looking page which basically says: It won't be reproducible even if you follow these steps. I don't know what you mean. Are you referring to the NDK portions? And if so, does the critical stuff (key verification, encryption) happen in Java or in native code? > "please don't send us messages about how it's not reproducible" Huh? Where did they say that?
  - dijit 3y ago
    Appreciate the ad hominem, let's continue. Even if I take, for absolute fact that you cannot possibly hire a PR firm or spend enough in marketing to get a puff piece about you in a magazine; you are glossing over the entire point I am making. Someone is telling me to like this guy. Someone is telling me that he's a saint, a hero, a steward of the future. Someone truly want's me to think that. I'll say it again because you didn't catch it: none of these issues are nails in a coffin, when placed together they paint a particular picture. I can't unsee that picture, and arguing over semantics doesn't change the core argument at all. I absolutely will not redact that statement because it is true that you can buy your way into magazines, either directly or indirectly. Whether the New Yorker is entirely immune to being convinced to write profiles like this: even if no money directly changes hands, is irrelevant. ----- > the Signal Android codebase includes some native shared libraries that we employ for voice calls (WebRTC, etc). At the time this native code was added, there was no Gradle NDK support yet, so the shared libraries aren’t compiled with the project build. > Getting the Gradle NDK support set up and making its output reproducible will likely be more difficult. > Please don’t freak out > Just to head off the inevitable deluge of GPG-encrypted emails with dramatic subject lines, we are not doing this in response to any kind of legal threat or pressure. This is just a weekend hack; please don’t make us regret it. tl;dr: it's not reproducible with shared libraries, or gradle and it was just a hack, please don't make them regret doing it. Oh, and did you actually run through the steps? Or is it merely enough that having them listed makes you trust them?
    - md_ 3y ago
      OK, fair enough. I guess my point was a little bit broader: anyone who knows anything about The New Yorker will think you're ignorant for having written what you did. Your comment here sort of confirms that. By all means, you're not the first person to proudly wave their ignorance on the Internet, nor will you be the last, and yours isn't especially egregious by Internet standards. I am baffled that you would want to write a blog post about how ignorant you are and then submit it to the front page of HN. If I were you, I'd, like, not want people to read that? But, up to you. Good thing you don't use your real name I guess. ;) > > Just to head off the inevitable deluge of GPG-encrypted emails with dramatic subject lines, we are not doing this in response to any kind of legal threat or pressure. This is just a weekend hack; please don’t make us regret it. This doesn't say what you said it says. > tl;dr: it's not reproducible with shared libraries, or gradle and it was just a hack, please don't make them regret doing it. As I said, in which codebase does the key verification and encryption live--is it in the native code, or in the Java code? I suspect you don't know, or you don't know why that matters. > Oh, and did you actually run through the steps? Or is it merely enough that having them listed makes you trust them? Oh, definitely the latter.

by md_ 3y ago

dijit 3y ago

I'm British but reside in Sweden and work for a German company, it's possible I don't know all things about American culture- I've only worked for one American company. What I'm referring to was a french company and they were talking about US papers. the 30-under-30 thing is Forbes, I have always considered them reputable, perhaps I am mistaken. The reproducible builds website; is; as previously mentioned a really nice looking page which basically says: It won't be reproducible even if you follow these steps. I literally said: "it looks good in a google search, but there is nothing of substance since they say in the article itself that it will not be reproducible", that "please don't send us messages about how it's not reproducible"; they say it's because of the shared libraries and that some parts are actually reproducible.

md_ 3y ago
> the 30-under-30 thing is Forbes, I have always considered them reputable, perhaps I am mistaken. No, Forbes is a shithole. https://www.entrepreneur.com/growing-a-business/did-someone-offer-to-write-about-you-in-exchange-for-money/362280 https://www.entrepreneur.com/growing-a-business/did-someone-... The New Yorker is not a shithole, and don't take money for articles. Maybe you want to, like, correct your blog post? Honestly, the claim makes you sound dumb. > The reproducible builds website; is; as previously mentioned a really nice looking page which basically says: It won't be reproducible even if you follow these steps. I don't know what you mean. Are you referring to the NDK portions? And if so, does the critical stuff (key verification, encryption) happen in Java or in native code? > "please don't send us messages about how it's not reproducible" Huh? Where did they say that?
- dijit 3y ago
  Appreciate the ad hominem, let's continue. Even if I take, for absolute fact that you cannot possibly hire a PR firm or spend enough in marketing to get a puff piece about you in a magazine; you are glossing over the entire point I am making. Someone is telling me to like this guy. Someone is telling me that he's a saint, a hero, a steward of the future. Someone truly want's me to think that. I'll say it again because you didn't catch it: none of these issues are nails in a coffin, when placed together they paint a particular picture. I can't unsee that picture, and arguing over semantics doesn't change the core argument at all. I absolutely will not redact that statement because it is true that you can buy your way into magazines, either directly or indirectly. Whether the New Yorker is entirely immune to being convinced to write profiles like this: even if no money directly changes hands, is irrelevant. ----- > the Signal Android codebase includes some native shared libraries that we employ for voice calls (WebRTC, etc). At the time this native code was added, there was no Gradle NDK support yet, so the shared libraries aren’t compiled with the project build. > Getting the Gradle NDK support set up and making its output reproducible will likely be more difficult. > Please don’t freak out > Just to head off the inevitable deluge of GPG-encrypted emails with dramatic subject lines, we are not doing this in response to any kind of legal threat or pressure. This is just a weekend hack; please don’t make us regret it. tl;dr: it's not reproducible with shared libraries, or gradle and it was just a hack, please don't make them regret doing it. Oh, and did you actually run through the steps? Or is it merely enough that having them listed makes you trust them?
  - md_ 3y ago
    OK, fair enough. I guess my point was a little bit broader: anyone who knows anything about The New Yorker will think you're ignorant for having written what you did. Your comment here sort of confirms that. By all means, you're not the first person to proudly wave their ignorance on the Internet, nor will you be the last, and yours isn't especially egregious by Internet standards. I am baffled that you would want to write a blog post about how ignorant you are and then submit it to the front page of HN. If I were you, I'd, like, not want people to read that? But, up to you. Good thing you don't use your real name I guess. ;) > > Just to head off the inevitable deluge of GPG-encrypted emails with dramatic subject lines, we are not doing this in response to any kind of legal threat or pressure. This is just a weekend hack; please don’t make us regret it. This doesn't say what you said it says. > tl;dr: it's not reproducible with shared libraries, or gradle and it was just a hack, please don't make them regret doing it. As I said, in which codebase does the key verification and encryption live--is it in the native code, or in the Java code? I suspect you don't know, or you don't know why that matters. > Oh, and did you actually run through the steps? Or is it merely enough that having them listed makes you trust them? Oh, definitely the latter.