feanaro

71 ms·

841.
by feanaro 6y ago
So don't use a 3PID to add someone, use their MXID. It's a unique, global identifier and is similar enough to an email address. There's also a Matrix URI specification in the works ( https://github.com/matrix-o
842.
by feanaro 6y ago
Did I say definitely , literally every and could possibly ? Notice to what I am replying: > [..] they are still too hard to setup and nowhere near as user-friendly for most people on an everyday basis. I think my comment is a fair re
843.
by feanaro 6y ago
> And before "have you tried this *nix distro??" comments appear Your style of comment is also quite the meme at this point, though. I always reply with: if my dad, mom, grandfather and other 10+ members of my family can use Mi
844.
by feanaro 6y ago
I consider not losing the freedom to run anything I want on the hardware an immediate benefit. I don't need to have a particular use case. I view as detrimental the very action of giving money to someone who wants to decide how I use t
845.
by feanaro 6y ago
The problem was with how you phrased your original comment. You implied that it (the tool?) is not legal because it offers "the ability to share your music online". This is why people started replying in this sense.
846.
by feanaro 6y ago
Exactly, youtube-dl is a legal tool. You have to expect that everyone is trying to game the law and push the scales in their favour. In that case, it is in RIAA's best interest that everything is locked down and they maintain exclusive
847.
by feanaro 6y ago
This depends on both the music in question and your jurisdiction. There is nothing inherent about "music" that makes it illegal to share it with others. Is it Taylor Swift or something your friend recorded? It makes a big differen
848.
by feanaro 6y ago
There are gargantuan unseen costs for giving up computing freedom that will not readily apparent at the moment you abandon it. The benefit will be shown as much more than "ostensible". I do hope for both of our sakes that most peo
849.
by feanaro 6y ago
I don't understand your confusion. Are you under the impression that the very act of sharing music online is illegal?
850.
by feanaro 6y ago
FHE is the ability to encrypt some data and give it to a machine, which is then able to perform sensible operations on it without decrypting it (and thus ever learning the plaintext). The term you are looking for is "obfuscation".
851.
by feanaro 6y ago
Apart from other excellent answers, there will also always be a need to run legacy software. Surely we don't want to lose the ability to play old games, for instance?
852.
by feanaro 6y ago
Luckily, contact tracing can be done efficiently the traditional way, by gathering the contacts of an infected person that tested positive and contacting them manually.
853.
by feanaro 6y ago
> If it mutates as efficiently as flu, it will be a challenge. It doesn't. Coronaviruses have a proofreading protein which prevents significant RNA changes: https://www.cell.com/molecular-cell/fulltext/S109
854.
by feanaro 6y ago
Fair. I retract my comment. I think what prompted me to react was mostly your `[government bad]` blurb. It felt like you got to state your political position and caricaturise the political position of the responder while avoiding further
855.
by feanaro 6y ago
It was not meant as a jab, and certainly not bad faith. I'm just telling you that your comment was of exactly the same character. Either refrain from making a political comment yourself or have it be responded to. Making a political co
856.
by feanaro 6y ago
Yes, without encryption, they have that possibility , after they prove probable cause. Without getting into a debate whether that is appropriate, it is important to keep in mind that it is the citizen's right to privacy of conversatio
857.
by feanaro 6y ago
That's a bleak future to hope for. We can do better. How about if we do not allow big brother to scan for criminals in the first place? Big brother has no business scanning for anything. Also, remember that criminals are defined by
858.
by feanaro 6y ago
I'm not doing anything different than what we are doing when discussing the improbability of a hypothetical 10-heads-in-a-row event.
859.
by feanaro 6y ago
I don't know why they are not proposing this instead (well, I do, because they'd prefer more power), but I do not find this proposal acceptable either. The fact that you might be able to see that a government read a message of you
860.
by feanaro 6y ago
I've been playing a board game daily for the last two weeks. As part of this game, a player has to draw one out of six unique cards. In the last five games, I've repeatedly drawn the same card. This is a real example. 1 / (1&
861.
by feanaro 6y ago
So you admit defeat on the politics aspect of it? Because every one of your points was political, save for 1a.
862.
by feanaro 6y ago
I like this "right to deprive" wording and toyed with it myself. Reminds me of the way DMCA anti-circumvention works. Perhaps we could call this the anti-snooping right.
863.
by feanaro 6y ago
You're right. You can tell this topic makes my blood boil, unfortunately.
864.
by feanaro 6y ago
Public pressure rarely materialises spontaneously, out of a vacuum. For it to materialize, someone has to rally for it. A manifesto needs to be written, the goals written down and elaborated. It has to be pushed into the media. It's no
865.
by feanaro 6y ago
I agree. Your expanded definition is better. Now let's flesh it out into a full-fledged proposal, put it up on a website and disseminate it among the people. Let's get it into the parliaments as something that the parliament membe
866.
by feanaro 6y ago
Perhaps, but see Article 8 which is cited in your sibling comment. It already contains a right to privacy. But the term privacy is not very rigid. It can be taken and interpreted in various ways. It's certainly a good thing to mention
867.
by feanaro 6y ago
Why is E2E encryption scary? This is a genuine question because it's a counterintuitive notion to me since I find the lack of E2E encryption scary.
868.
by feanaro 6y ago
I don't know whether this has been tried before, but it is definitely the right move. The governments should be busy fighting and trying to shut down our proposals and not the other way around.
869.
by feanaro 6y ago
Sorry, but this is nonsense. Possessing cryptography does not imply the boogeyman will, as a consequence, gain the ability to overthrow the system. On the other hand, there's very concrete evidence governments are the boogeymen.
870.
by feanaro 6y ago
Last time I tried it, and I heard that's still the case, offlineimap had some sporadic instabilities that have not been fixed for years. I don't remember the exact details, but it just stops working in some situations and you have

More ›