ignirtoq

Amazon is using their own hosting. AWS stands for Amazon Web Services. Or did I miss the joke?

I'm American, not British, but every single item mentioned that public perception is wrong about sounds like it skews toward what would be rightwing propaganda here. If the British right is anything like the American right, then appealing to the politicians misrepresenting the numbers to do a better job stating the facts is a fool's errand. The misinformation is on purpose.

While a TLS uses the same key throughout a session, keys within a Signal session constantly evolve.

What are we defining as a "session" for Signal? The vast majority of TLS sessions exist for the duration of pulling down a web page. Dynamically interact with that page? New HTTP request backed by a new TLS session. Sure, there are exceptions like WebSockets, but by and large TLS sessions are often short.

Is a Signal session the duration of sending a single message? An entire conversation? The entire time you have someone in your address book? It doesn't seem like an apples-to-apples comparison.

As far as I've ever been paying attention, conservatives only argue in bad faith. It's always been about elevating their own speech and suppressing speech that counters theirs. They just couch it in terms that sound vaguely reasonable or logical in the moment if you don't know their history and don't think about it more deeply than very surface-level.

Before, platforms were suppressing their speech, so they were promoters of free speech. Now platforms are not suppressing speech counter to them, so it's all about content moderation to protect the children, or whatever. But their policies always belie their true motive: they never implement what research shows supports their claimed position of the moment. They always create policies that hurt their out-groups and may sometimes help their in-groups (helping people is optional).

Good discussion of the rationalization of a fascist play. Only one criticism:

But this investigation will become part of the pattern and practice of this administration filled with aspiring fascists.

They're not aspiring. They've sent in the military to take over a city from civilian control under a completely fabricated pretext with an underlying entirely political true purpose. That's not aspiring fascism, that is fascism.

My understanding of why digital computers rose to dominance was not any superiority in capability but basically just error tolerance. When the intended values can only be "on" or "off," your circuit can be really poor due to age, wear, or other factors, but if it's within 40% of the expected "on" or "off" state, it will function basically the same as perfect. Analog computers don't have anywhere near tolerances like that, which makes them more fragile, expensive, and harder to scale production.

I'm really curious if the researchers address any of those considerations.

Some argue that because VPNs exist, any age assurance system will fail. This leads to the mistaken belief that age-restricted sites are exempt from compliance if users connect through a VPN. As we have argued before, this is not true. Legislation we have reviewed globally, including the UK’s Online Safety Act (2023) and similar meaaures[sic] in Australia or US states, offers no such exemption.

This seems a bit disingenuous. This is conflating legal exemption (i.e. the law explicitly providing an out) with enforceability. Is anyone seriously arguing that because of the existence of VPNs that their use to circumvent the law therefore makes that act of circumvention legal?

The article goes on to explain technical mechanisms by which websites can determine whether someone is likely to be accessing the site from the UK despite using a VPN (all of which become statistical and not certain conclusions, as well as require gathering suspiciously identifying information the user has not consented to supplying), but that really sidesteps the crux of the conversation. Experts in cyber security have been railing against this law and others like it for a while, with solid evidence that they don't have the effect proponents claim (that is, make the Internet safer for children), and in fact can make the Internet more dangerous for minors. So the question is then: is violating this law civically unethical?

Did blockchain solve it? Is blockchain actually pragmatically solving that problem better than existing alternatives? Or is the cost of adopting a blockchain payment system as the primary payment system, with all the risks inherent in it, higher than the benefits when compared to alternatives?

misused

Give me an example of a real world problem that was either unsolved before blockchain solved it, or blockchain solves it better than existing alternatives.

I'll go ahead and save you "decentralized currency/finance between untrustworthy entities" (i.e. cryptocurrency) because it doesn't actually (and can't actually) solve that in the real world. Humans are too error-prone, and an immutable ledger presents too high a risk for business-ending mistakes for any business with any alternative options to adopt it for their primary revenue pathway.

Several years ago I created a Slack bot that ran something like Jupyter notebook in a container, and it would execute Python code that you sent to it and respond with the results. It worked in channels you invited it to as well as private messages, and if you edited your message with your code, it would edit its response to always match the latest input. It was a fun exercise to learn the Slack API, as well as create something non-trivial and marginally useful in that Slack environment. I knew the horrible security implications of such a bot, even with the Python environment containerized, and never considered opening it up outside of my own personal use.

Looks like the AI companies have decided that exact architecture is perfectly safe and secure as long as you obfuscate the input pathway by having to go through a chat-bot. Brilliant.

“Generally, what happens to these wastes today is they go to a landfill, get dumped in a waterway, or they’re just spread on land,” said Vaulted Deep CEO Julia Reichelstein. “In all of those cases, they’re decomposing into CO2 and methane. That’s contributing to climate change.”

Waste decomposition is part of the natural carbon cycle. Burning fossil fuels isn't. We should not be suppressing part of the natural cycle so we can supplant it with our own processes. This is Hollywood accounting applied to carbon emissions, and it's not going to solve anything.

A balloon full of helium has more mass than a balloon without helium, but less weight

That's not true. A balloon full of helium has more mass and more weight than a balloon without helium. Weight is dependent only on the mass of the balloon+helium and the mass of the planet (Earth).

The balloon full of helium displaces way more air than the balloon without helium since it is inflated. The volume of displaced air of the inflated balloon has more weight than the combined weight of the balloon and helium within, so it floats due to buoyancy from the atmosphere. Its weight is the same regardless of the medium it's in, but the net forces experienced by it are not.