What “deserved” are you talking about?

You are the one repeatedly saying all over the thread that she deserved to be raped. You try to be edgy and sarcastic about it but that doesn’t change the message.

I didn’t say you should go and rape the woman. I said she received what she signed up to do to others.

If you repeatedly say that someone deserves something you are literally implying that we should go do something to people. It is what “deserves” fucking means.

You are once again completely ignoring the material reality and instead focusing on whether or not that woman “deserved” to be raped (that phrase has terrible connotations btw, this whole thread needs a large CW on it).

Whether or not someone deserves something is basically emotional and thus idealist, but its material roots are in the total social advantage of giving out a benefit or punishment to a given person. Therefore this is the angle we should take.

If we examine the material outcomes resulting from an active US military member being raped by a colleague, there is very little positive results there. For the victim, trauma does not prevent one from being violent and aggressive, if anything it exacerbates it. The perpetrator meanwhile will be enabled and mentally prepared for even more atrocities against their other victims. For everyone else, it normalizes a horrible behavior that has no place in society.

Then again, even form an idealist angle, I don’t think anyone deserves to be raped. Unlike killing, it is never a valid method of defense, because it requires that the target is already overpowered by the perpetrator. It does not serve any possible function other than satisfying the sexual/sadistic/controlling desires of the perpetrator at the expense of the victim.

Killing active-duty US military members to prevent them from engaging in their usual war crimes is OK because it serves a clear goal (incapacitate the soldier, deter other soldiers from joining).

Raping active-duty US military members is not OK because it does not serve any goal, she has PTSD now but that won’t stop her from doing more work for the military, and it does nothing to deter men from joining the military (if anything it may be a more enticing proposition for the target audience)

The question is not whether or not someone “deserved” something, it is “which material outcome do we want to achieve”.

Because you are refusing to answer my simple question of what you are advocating for, I will assume my initial assumption is correct. It seems the material outcome you want to achieve is terrible suffering for women in US military, not the prevention of war crimes by US military. While understandable that you want to hurt “bad people” like that, it’s not helpful at all.

I’m not defending the crimes this woman helped perpetrate, I’m asking what material actions you are advocating for.

For example, I believe that the rapist should be punished, this woman needs help with the resulting PTSD, and the entire military needs to be dismantled with appropriate punishments for all involved. Requiring them to do labor rebuilding countries they destroyed would be a good start, with harsher punishment for people doing actual war crimes themselves. Being physically violated by a man who’s also an accessory to war crimes is not a valid punishment, it does not advance any of the societal goals of punishment (deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, retribution), to speak nothing of how inhumane and cruel it is.

What about you?

What the fuck are you trying to advocate for here, materially speaking? That men can and/or should rape women on US navy ships? I don’t want to put words in your mouth but that is what it sounds like.

Popularity is increasingly necessary to be able to actually use the OS. Hardware is constantly evolving, you need to keep up with everything from the new CPU architectures to the boot environment to drivers. Software is constantly evolving (worsening) too, if you want to interact with the web you need to be able to run a modern browser. Without popularity, there will be neither volunteers nor coprorate donors to do all this monumental work.

If corporate involvement is a bigger issue for you than usability, GNU Guix/Hurd is always there for you. I have it set up on an old laptop, it is kinda fun in a way but not really usable for anything.

The sad truth is that Linux would be as popular as Hurd if not for corporate money and resources.

The question is that of control. Linux is still mostly controlled by Linus and his officers whom I mostly trust. Omarchy is controlled by a right-winger idiot, so I wouldn’t trust it regardless of money.

Honestly yeah, that’s the best solution if you want to do something like this.

That sounds awful. What if I don’t want to use my phone for 24 hours? Besides, if the government has tech to unlock your phone they will probably be able to use it pretty much immediately, so a time delay doesn’t really matter.

Data contained on the phone is very much the property which they wanted to take into custody or control, and it was wiped.

I think stuff like that would be up to the jury to decide. If I was on that jury I definitely wouldn’t consider just having a duress password to imply intent of “knowingly preventing the Government to take property into its custody”, especially since GrapheneOS doesn’t really mention state actors in its FAQ. It would be reasonable for him to claim that he enabled this feature to protect himself from illegal searches or kidnapping, and accidentally gave the wrong answer to the cops.

But reading the OP interview it seems to me that he is almost admitting that he wiped the phone intentionally, tipping the scales significantly. Is it “beyond reasonable doubt” that he intentionally gave the duress password now? Maybe.

Nah, it doesn’t change anything. The statute says

Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure, knowingly destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government’s lawful authority to take such property into its custody or control or to continue holding such property under its lawful custody and control, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

It’s clear that if he intended to wipe the phone and told the officer a password which would erase the contents, he “knowingly took an action for the purpose of preventing the Government’s lawful authority to take such property into its custody”.

Yeah and it’s even more stupid for him to be giving out interviews right now defending his actions. If I was him I would shut up in public and tell prosecutors that I was under extreme stress and pressure of the detainment and accidentally mixed up the real password with the duress password. The government can easily prove all elements for obstruction of justice “destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure” here, except for intent.

Why would anyone leak their identity to Telegram when a certain RUssian torrent TRACKER forum ORGanization is right there?

As the other commenter said, not much point moving to Signal, while it is at least E2E encrypted it also suffers from potential privacy issues. I would say if you have to move, move to XMPP or (maybe) Matrix.

As (technically) a Russian dissident, the majority of Russian dissidents are idiots. See: support for Navalniy, support for Gaza genocide. FWIW I’m an idiot too.

Telegram is not private at all, it is not encrypted by default, and there are likely ways for three-letter agencies to leak your identity even without full cooperation from Telegram LLC.

While it’s true that Durov is somewhat anti-Putin, that doesn’t help you as (likely) a citizen of a western country. Durov will clearly cooperate with western governments on their demands, he holds French citizenship and regularly travels to Europe.

I think a huge problem here is that AI removed a lot of the incentive to hire juniors. The “churn” of writing code is mostly solved, so senior engineers can now rejoice in perfecting software architecture and guiding/babysitting the LLMs to do the rest. Even if someone does hire a junior, they usually end up using an LLM themselves the output will be useless vibecoded shit, but a lot more of it than what the junior could type themselves, which wastes a lot of time for senior folks and is overall useless. Together this means that bosses will avoid hiring anyone without experience even harder than before.

However this also means that in 10-20 years when the current gen of senior engineers retire, there may not be anyone to replace them. No matter how much theory you learn (which I agree everyone in the profession must do), experience is priceless in software development.

Yeah, still, I wouldn’t claim “as no human would end up falling into that”, given that it may not be that unlikely to find at least one human who displays similar writing the more humans you involve.

No, it is actually statistically impossible for a human to replicate this on sufficiently long runs of text.

This is not about replicating writing like a model. This is basically about guessing which words to pick from the list of suitable words based on a rule that you don’t know (because the key is secret).

To reduce this to the simplest possible example, imagine you are writing a “text” from just two letters: “a” and “b”. Let’s say for convenience that the text is supposed to be random. So the text would look something like “ababaaabbababbbabababaabbbabaababbaaabbabaabbaaaaabaaabbbaabaabababbabbbbbbbbabbabaabbbbbbbaabbabaab”

(generated with '''.join(random.choice(['a', 'b']) for i in range(0, 50)))

The watermarking works as follows: the model owner holds a key, and then uses that key to influence the random choices between “a” and “b” somehow, in a context-dependent way. The actual algorithm is quite complicated, but for simplicity let’s just say we have a secret pattern which biases the random choice towards it. In order to see the exaggerated results, let’s say the secret key is “aaaabbbb” (of course this is a bad secret key, once again just an example), and that the bias is strong (let’s say 80%). So this would mean that the first four letters in our text are more likely to be “a”, the next four letters are more likely to be “b”, then the next four letters are more likely to be “a”, and so on.

Then the text would look something like “aaaabaabaabaabbbabaaaabbaaaababbbaaaabbbabaabbbbaaabaabbaaaaabbbabababbaaaaabbbbaaabbbbbaaaaababaaba”.

(generated with ''.join(random.choice(['a', 'b'] + ([key[i % len(key)]] * 3)) for i in range(0, 100)))

You can see visually that the secret key has affected the text. Of course in this example even if you didn’t know the secret key you could probably figure it out, in reality the algorithm is way more complicated than that, relying on cryptography, so you wouldn’t be able to know the secret key or see that the string has been biased at all.

If the text is long enough, and you know the secret key, you can guarantee that the text was generated with it. In our examples, the letters in the text match our key 77% of the time. The probability of an actual random algorithm generating a text like that is already very low, despite the base entropy being only 100 bits. If my math is correct, for our example the p-value is 2.7 * 10⁻⁸, or about 0.00000027%. I would bet a hungy that the text was generated by our watermarking algorithm, with odds like these!

Of course we did exaggerate the bias and our base algorithm was random. In reality the bias is smaller, the algorithm for determining the likelihoods of possible next tokens is very complicated (it’s the LLM itself), and the algorithm for determining which token to bias is also way more complicated (involving cryptography and real secret keys). That said, hopefully it should help you understand why, for sufficiently long texts, this fingerprinting is just not possible to be replicated by humans.

Why would firefox drop UBO support?

If it was unusually selfish to care about how you were honored after you die, then nobody would be buying grave monuments or fancy urns.

I wouldn’t say unusually, but yes, people are known to be selfish and immature sometimes. Especially when faced with something scary and unavoidable, like death, and backed by culture and tradition.

I imagine it makes them feel like their child doesn’t love them as much as they thought they did.

People receive and express love in different ways. Not understanding and engaging with that is immature. Trying to manipulate another person into doing something uncomfortable after your death for no material reason at all is selfish.

Sometimes we bear little burdens for the people we love, and that’s totally normal, in my opinion.

Maybe the father can bear the little burden of not doing anything and not being materially affected in any way, then.