4 ms·

> 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/growi

by 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.
  - dijit 3y ago
    > anyone who knows anything about The New Yorker will think you're ignorant for having written what you did. Well, I am ignorant, I don't know the internal workings of every single magazine, but I am aware how the media engine is working since I also work in the entertainment industry. I am sure you are not genuinely claiming that it's impossible for them to be influenced by PR firms or external marketing spend? That you sincerely believe they are never influenced by external marketing of people? How might you suppose they find people to write profiles on? I personally know that it isn't chance. > Good thing you don't use your real name I guess. ;) I do use my real name for whatever it's worth, I have absolutely no problem wearing these statements on my sleeve- if you read the article you would see my real name plastered at the top of the page and a link to my video game credits buried near the bottom of the page in the "Commonly Asked Questions" section. I'm really happy you took the the time to respond to me though, since you are precisely the type of person I'm writing this for; people who are emotionally pro-signal, when in reality there's no reason to be. Do you even read how aggressive your tone is? If you actually had anything meaningful to say I would feel terrible.

by md_ 3y ago

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.
- dijit 3y ago
  > anyone who knows anything about The New Yorker will think you're ignorant for having written what you did. Well, I am ignorant, I don't know the internal workings of every single magazine, but I am aware how the media engine is working since I also work in the entertainment industry. I am sure you are not genuinely claiming that it's impossible for them to be influenced by PR firms or external marketing spend? That you sincerely believe they are never influenced by external marketing of people? How might you suppose they find people to write profiles on? I personally know that it isn't chance. > Good thing you don't use your real name I guess. ;) I do use my real name for whatever it's worth, I have absolutely no problem wearing these statements on my sleeve- if you read the article you would see my real name plastered at the top of the page and a link to my video game credits buried near the bottom of the page in the "Commonly Asked Questions" section. I'm really happy you took the the time to respond to me though, since you are precisely the type of person I'm writing this for; people who are emotionally pro-signal, when in reality there's no reason to be. Do you even read how aggressive your tone is? If you actually had anything meaningful to say I would feel terrible.