Removed by mod

DARRYL, SOCRATES’ FRIEND:

screenshot looks fake (i don’t know what renders quote tweets like that), but it is real

source

Removed by mod

this post is a screenshot of https://news.lettersofnote.com/p/oh-my-god-how-i-do-hate-species-and

see also https://news.lettersofnote.com/p/i-loathe-i-abhor-the-sea-and-all

and https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/ (where you can search and read the full text of over 15,000 of Darwin’s letters)

i absotively posilutely want to see dingledangler become an in-the-swim catch-word again.

(to acknowledge the corn, i had to consult this to write this comment.)

One could wake up at 8am and watch both seasons of TAS, and still have time for a full season of LD before midnight.

Star Trek: Picard consisting of three seasons of 10 episodes each:

don’t say that he’s hypocritical, say rather that he’s apolitical

Whoever implementsed this agents without proper oversight needs to be fired.

Idk it works for me.

I don’t think there is any possible value for the sign variable which would make that if statement do anything other than raise a TypeError.

Also "8:00:00" > "10:00:00"

but "08:00:00" < "10:00:00". comparing timestamps as strings is weird but actually works, as long as the hour is zero-padded :)

the problem with this code is that & (bitwise AND) has higher operator precedence than > and == do, so it is first trying to bitwise AND "10:00:00" with sign (which i’m assuming would also be a string) and that will always raise a TypeError.

to do what the author appears to have intended to do, they would either need use parenthesis around both comparisons to actually bitwise AND their results, or (better) to use the boolean AND operator (and) instead of &.

The boolean and operator is the right tool for the job, and since it is lower precedence it also wouldn’t require that any parenthesis be added here.

don’t trust anyone over 30 0x30

TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for &: 'str' and 'str'

They may get off. But I highly doubt Kristy Noem and Stephen Miller will. Or even Greg Bovino. The people responsible for the policies that led to those murders will be held accountable.

Not sure if you’re doing a bit, but i’ll bite: Can you recall any historical examples of US public officials being held accountable for their obviously-criminal policy decisions? Eg, remind me who from the Bush administration went to prison due to the fact that they (as Obama put it) “tortured some folks”? And who from the Obama administration went to prison for any of their war crimes (eg)? What makes you think it will be different for people like Noem and Miller? 🤔

i think i get Candand (what some Barnes & Noble spam once rendered C++ as?) but, what is borsuk language?

💯

hopefully a FOSS organization will hire the person who made this

Reputable news source “GLOBAL FACTZ”

😂

Fwiw, before reposting this meme, I actually checked to make sure that the underlying “weird news” story here was not solely reported by random clickbait fake news sites but was also covered by an actual news organization.

So in summary. You’re right. Sealed sender is not a great solution. But

Thanks :)

But, I still maintain it is entirely useless - its only actual use is to give users the false impression that the server is unable to learn the social graph. It is 100% snake oil.

it is a mitigation for the period where those messages are being accepted.

It sounds like you’re assuming that, prior to sealed sender, they were actually storing the server-visible sender information rather than immediately discarding it after using it to authenticate the sender? They’ve always said that they weren’t doing that, but, if they were, they could have simply stopped storing that information rather than inventing their “sealed sender” cryptographic construction.

To recap: Sealed sender ostensibly exists specifically to allow the server to verify the sender’s permission to send without needing to know the sender identity. It isn’t about what is being stored (as they could simply not store the sender information), it is about what is being sent. As far as I can tell it only makes any sense if one imagines that a malicious server somehow would not simply infer the senders’ identities from their (obviously already identified) receiver connections from the same IPs.

Sure. If a state serves a subpoena to gather logs for metadata analysis, sealed sender will prevent associating senders to receivers, making this task very difficult.

Pre sealed-sender they already claimed not to keep metadata logs, so, complying with such a subpoena^[1] should already have required them to change the behavior of their server software.

If a state wanted to order them to add metadata logging in a non-sealed-sender world, wouldn’t they also probably ask them to log IPs for all client-server interactions (which would enable breaking sealed-sender through a trivial correlation)?

Note that defeating sealed sender doesn’t require any kind of high-resolution timing or costly analysis; with an adversary-controlled server (eg, one where a state adversary has compelled the operator to alter the server’s behavior via a National Security Letter or something) it is easy to simply record the IP which sent each “sealed” message and also record which account(s) are checked from which IPs at all times.