6 ms·

> Once you're larger than the fits-in-pocket form factor, your comparables include a straightforward deblobbable laptop A laptop is NOT a comparable user exper

> Once you're larger than the fits-in-pocket form factor, your comparables include a straightforward deblobbable laptop A laptop is NOT a comparable user experience to something someone can hold in their hand while on foot: a USB touchscreen that is smartphone-sized can be used. The culmination of all of this is a very small backpack > maybe you're aimed at Graphene enthusiasts Very rich people and their families already have these kinds of solutions. Other people who are rich in other ways (hacker's mind and motivation) also already have these kinds of solutions. Both of the responses above were already written in the parent comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42557398 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42557398 And also already written in a parent comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42559741 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42559741 that has been demonstrated to work in production even for the most user-iest of users. > with the radios isolated out over USB. Sure, that's always been possible... And some people actually went ahead and did it. The core idea was not my original idea, it had been done already in one form or another (though not as refined as ours') quite long before. All my camp did was package it so that non-technical people could have something that "just works". Many of the users of these solutions are not technical at all. A combination of USB and ethernet. In some of these setups the "radio" is a retail Android device that is connected to ethernet via USB. > Then furthermore, this whole thing started with you condemning Signal itself Nothing I wrote condemns Signal, but simply confronts the hard reality that Signal does not protect users because by virtue of the platforms Signal runs on de facto, Signal can not protect users. Signal can protect users on my camp's devices however, as was already explained here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42556652 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42556652 > because the whole mobile-first trust-Google teetering-on-the-edge-of-proprietary thing has always left a bad taste in my mouth I appreciate that you landed on the some of the same answers that I and others near me did. The key difference is we went ahead and acted on these concerns. > You still have not described your answer in concrete terms I feel I have shared more than enough that a thinking person can put 2 and 2 together. I also already already wrote "I expect someone will be able to [release this information] in a proper way this coming year." here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42560339 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42560339 Your limits within reasonably expected reading comprehension have exhausted my available patience. That said, relative to the rest of the world, we likely have more in common than not. edits: fixed some grammar

mindslight 2y ago
Scattering tidbits around in different comments while including dodgy unsubstantiated appeals to authority like "Very rich people and their families already have these kinds of solutions" does not make for a compelling argument. It sounds like you have something real, that solves a real problem while adding its own drawbacks, that works for your requirements. Focus on the specific value proposition, including the specific technical details in technical forums. Otherwise, you just sound like a crank. And the security field has a long history of cranks arguing against mainstream advice to sound edgy and authoritative (eg what you said regarding Signal) while then pushing their own bespoke solutions that survive through lack of scrutiny.
- devops99 2y ago
  > Scattering tidbits around What I am showing you is I already answered your question, you fail at reading comprehension, or you fail at comprehending the very concepts themselves. Probably the latter. > that could solve a real problem, while adding its own drawbacks. It already solved a real problem. I have asked you repeatedly to specify a real-world drawback other than the physical profile (which the users find tolerable), you have not done this successfully. > Focus on the specific value proposition We already did this, and delivered. > arguing against mainstream advice Mainstream advice in the security world is, to consider a device secure: - do not run binary blobs in kernel space - do not run binary blobs in higher-privileged cores on the board > (eg what you said regarding Signal) The concept that something running in userspace can not protect users when 1.] the host OS is already compromised (binary blobs in kernel space) and 2.] underlying "hardware" is already compromised (via firmware on higher privileged cores, similar to Intel ME/AMT) is EXTREMELY MAINSTREAM. > appeals to authority like "Very rich people and their families already have these kinds of solutions" does not make for a compelling argument. But this WAS NOT MY ARGUMENT. My argument, as posted here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42557398 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42557398, was: Very rich people and their families already have these kinds of solutions. Other people who are rich in other ways (hacker's mind and motivation) also already have these kinds of solutions. The authority that I did appeal to, ultimately, are Systems Administrators and relatively novice hackers equipped to prepare these solutions for themselves. > their own bespoke solutions The pattern was standardized over a decade ago. Our own implementation is already standardized with enough units in production that it's not bespoke anymore. > that survive through lack of scrutiny. If you were capable of implementing this solution on your own, which you have already effectively admitted you are not, then scrutiny from someone like yourself would be worth more than two rat shits, but you can not, so it is not. At this point, you are clearly a midwit intelligent enough to comprehend what I have posted, but you still continue to post utter garbage. And ultimately I perceive you as a moderately mentally ill fucking moron.

mindslight 2y ago

Scattering tidbits around in different comments while including dodgy unsubstantiated appeals to authority like "Very rich people and their families already have these kinds of solutions" does not make for a compelling argument. It sounds like you have something real, that solves a real problem while adding its own drawbacks, that works for your requirements. Focus on the specific value proposition, including the specific technical details in technical forums. Otherwise, you just sound like a crank. And the security field has a long history of cranks arguing against mainstream advice to sound edgy and authoritative (eg what you said regarding Signal) while then pushing their own bespoke solutions that survive through lack of scrutiny.

devops99 2y ago
> Scattering tidbits around What I am showing you is I already answered your question, you fail at reading comprehension, or you fail at comprehending the very concepts themselves. Probably the latter. > that could solve a real problem, while adding its own drawbacks. It already solved a real problem. I have asked you repeatedly to specify a real-world drawback other than the physical profile (which the users find tolerable), you have not done this successfully. > Focus on the specific value proposition We already did this, and delivered. > arguing against mainstream advice Mainstream advice in the security world is, to consider a device secure: - do not run binary blobs in kernel space - do not run binary blobs in higher-privileged cores on the board > (eg what you said regarding Signal) The concept that something running in userspace can not protect users when 1.] the host OS is already compromised (binary blobs in kernel space) and 2.] underlying "hardware" is already compromised (via firmware on higher privileged cores, similar to Intel ME/AMT) is EXTREMELY MAINSTREAM. > appeals to authority like "Very rich people and their families already have these kinds of solutions" does not make for a compelling argument. But this WAS NOT MY ARGUMENT. My argument, as posted here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42557398 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42557398, was: Very rich people and their families already have these kinds of solutions. Other people who are rich in other ways (hacker's mind and motivation) also already have these kinds of solutions. The authority that I did appeal to, ultimately, are Systems Administrators and relatively novice hackers equipped to prepare these solutions for themselves. > their own bespoke solutions The pattern was standardized over a decade ago. Our own implementation is already standardized with enough units in production that it's not bespoke anymore. > that survive through lack of scrutiny. If you were capable of implementing this solution on your own, which you have already effectively admitted you are not, then scrutiny from someone like yourself would be worth more than two rat shits, but you can not, so it is not. At this point, you are clearly a midwit intelligent enough to comprehend what I have posted, but you still continue to post utter garbage. And ultimately I perceive you as a moderately mentally ill fucking moron.