close04

So by 2030, all qualified products will be PQC-free.

You mean the opposite. PQC-free will be blocked, so by 2030 all products will be PQC qualified.

Getting to “the second page” is as good as gone. All it takes is platforms’ algorithms to not promote this link and it doesn’t matter how many people find it worth the discussion.

Case in point, pushing 100 upvotes but off the front page, when some random Wired blogspam stay on the front page for half a day with a quarter of votes and comments.

Making the same mistakes you point out in the author’s text, just with no insight to be gained.

The problem is that if you have nothing g to offer to counter someone’s argument except “nuh-uh” then you have nothing to offer. And yet here you are, insisting to offer nothing and being proud about it.

This is when that “humans get a free pass” bites us all in the ass.

We have difficulty defining “actual understanding”. Humans get a free pass because we assume humans as a species possess this power but if we were to judge based on output alone maybe you couldn’t tell a human from a sufficiently advanced LLM/AI.

So I’ll be handwavey here and say that if “actual understanding” is to an LLM what an LLM is to a bash script, so there’s a mechanism there that doesn’t just follow hardcoded paths, it takes new data and processes it in novel but human like ways to come to a new conclusion if needed, then the author is right, in my opinion.

We don’t know what the reward function is for an AI but AI is trained on so much human work that it probably starts off with the same biases in its understanding and reactions. It feels like there’s something very basic in becoming more independent the more you understand of the world. Animals go through this as they grow too, not just humans (listening to parental authority until they eventually don’t anymore).

Since there is no established consensus on this one the burden is on either party to prove their own side. Just because the author said something first doesn’t mean they need to write a full proof while you get to say “nuh-uh” and that’s enough.

The expression is “the enemy of good” not “the enemy if something” so in the end it’s about defining “good”. It varies with context. What’s good, move fast and break things or go slow and considerate? Is risking bugs worth it to launch a feature? How important is that feature? How important is it to have it now vs. later? And how do you reconcile it when what’s good for you is bad for me?

Recovering could be measured in hours.

Yes, even hundreds of them sometimes.

The most time consuming part of recovering from an attack is validating everything. It takes more than a few hours to validate the infra that stays put isn’t compromised, the IaC code itself isn’t compromised, deploy the infra, bring a copy of the offline backup of your data (your IaC can’t drive to another site and bring the backups, then make a copy, unless tou are really sure you removed any trace of compromise), validate that the backup is sound, then restore it.

In some cases the infrastructure part is the least time consuming. Some platforms are straight forward enough that even manual deployment is fast. But after a hack you can’t trust anything so you need to do the slow validation that takes longer than your projected “hours”.

On phones the cramped view is particularly pronounced. The “pointing device” is fat and the edges of the screen are usually reserved for swiping the tab or back/fwd. This leaves even less of the screen available for acting on a plane.

I played a few runs and every crash happened on the edge of the screen where I couldn’t route the planes or I was dragging the tab as I dragged the flight path (iOS, Safari). That’s the only time the view moves and I can see outside the initial border.

Anyway, really cool game!

Why post these random unsubstantiated claims on HN?

To show everyone the Gell-Mann amnesia effect in action.

When HN top karma poster and security professional posts something like this, doubles down, and can’t even be bothered to support it in any way (I’m open to learning and changing my opinion) it completely blurs the line going into social media influencer. Quantity over quality.

I’ve had the same issues in the Pi1-3 era, can’t say for sure if it was the Pi, the SD card, or the software running on top (HA was a big culprit). The last issues were probably before 2018-2018. Since then I don’t remember having any failure and I have a bunch of Pi3s and 4s running with flawlessly for about that long, including HA.

Since then I’ve been careful to buy high quality cards, oversized them a bit, optimize the OS and apps with regards to writes (like no unnecessary logging), and paid attention to airflow. The software probably also evolved to fix the issues.

They’re also trying to take an axe to the lead the US has in the field at a time when sovereignty and “owning your platform” are the words of the day. Open source/open weight LLMs can steal the lunch of US competitors even if they aren’t the best of the best.

That shouldn’t be the case. In some cases it would also be ridiculous, when the common areas are larger than the apartments themselves (corridors, elevators, technical rooms, etc.). They do include the proportional square footage corresponding to each apartment. But this is still very misleading because some buildings have a lot of common areas that can double the advertised size of the very small apartments.

Even the article talks about this. The backdoor is when there’s no E2EE - he speaks of the “absolute right to privacy” which the proposed age verification solution wouldn’t breach in any way, so it’s actually the loss of encryption. It’s when a legal and technical framework are put in place to do age verification which can be switched to identity verification in a blink of an eye. It’s when cryptographically attested software is the only way to use the internet which even the author, as a suporter of the upsides, knows what it implies on the downside.

We’ve had the “compromise” solutions forever before the harder stance tech took on privacy in the last few years, and governments abused them into oblivion. Every time the tech allowed it, it was legally abused and applied much wider than initially promised. This isn’t just about age verification but also encryption.

Every time you step back, the opposing force advances one step and soon you’ll have the same discussion again except from an even weaker position. Do you really think that once the framework is in place everyone will forever be content and not push for the next step?

Like the author, you are advocating for the “small backdoor”. Or like another commenter put it, the prophylactic that only gets you a little pregnant. There’s no such thing.

What disconnects this discussion from reality, and maybe causes questions like “why don’t they just do it this way”, is the assumption that this is really only or even mainly about age verification and “protecting the children”.

The reason it’s not done “this way” or “that way” even when those are objectively better ways to achieve the stated goal, but rather in an unexplainable way broader way is because the goal is broader that that and age verification is just the tip of the spear. The rest of it is laying the groundwork for a framework to control the freedom on the internet by linking identity to speech and action.

Look at what solution is implemented to decide what problem is it supposed to fix, otherwise you’re just looking at the smoke and mirrors.

Not that every state and country is on board with this, but it’s getting a lot harder to maintain the pressure to keep these initiatives down. Every time they get pushed one step forward it’s that much harder to regain that ground.

The guy’s logic is “if only we had allowed a small backdoor from the start they wouldn’t be forced to install a large backdoor now”. Other technologies that were open to the law were endlessly abused for surveillance.

His theory is bunk, there is absolutely no middle ground to be had with the people who want a backdoor. There are no small backdoors.

And before you ask: Yes, I’m laying this one squarely down before (and partly on the toes of) the tech bros: We could have designed our protocols to be minimally compatible with “a nation of laws,” but the tech bros insisted that compromise was treason, and, as a result, we will lose more privacy than necessary.

Ah, the famous “maybe if I take a step back they’ll appreciate it and not push harder”. Or maybe it’s “if I give the leopard my face maybe it spares my body”.

I’ll let reality speak for itself: look no further than Stingrays and every bit of legal abuse they enabled, where innocent people are spied on in bulk with flimsy excuses. How well did it work out when the protocol was already maximally compatible with laws?

There’s no “minimally compatible”, you either have the privacy technically guaranteed or you don’t. If it’s technically allowed to breach it, it will soon be done as a matter of routine under the guise of “protecting”, “preventing”, and so on.

So in the end we didn’t lose anything, what we did was we gained a short period in which we could all taste that freedom. If we used your proposal nobody would have had even that to begin with.

This logic would have been easier to forgive if it came from youth and inexperience, from someone who never got to know about the endless abuse of surveillance that was inflicted indiscriminately on everyone.

I promised myself I would never join their ranks.

A wasted opportunity, missed by at least 1 article :).

Particularly for “luxury” brands as selling at a discount devalues the brand. I use quotes because most of those brands sell cheap stuff (double digit manufacturing cost using forced labor [0]) but with a fancy logo making them worth 4 figures.

[0] Better link: https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2025/jul/24/made-in-ital...

A billion people just decided to organize ad-hoc and lift themselves out of poverty in a country where to this day the state plans everything in 5 years plans? I’m not saying “the state” did all the work but you don’t seem to know much about China or how large groups of people work.

Have you seen anyone in the US take credit for the thousands of deaths the US caused around the world? Same goes for any other country in a similar situation. The people only get credit for the good stuff?

There’s egregious and there’s malicious.

What has Flock ever done for the US people? At least the Chinese Police State lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty next to the terrible things they’ve done. I’m saying this only part jokingly but one has to wonder where exactly are all the real benefits promised by those sinking the US deeper and deeper in surveillance.

I get the need for small luxuries but you failed to make the point that the Sony store is the place for this. I don’t mind if you clarify for me how not buying movies from Sony and buying instead from Amazon or a local store for example is such a loss for quality of life. Why is Sony so special? Do those people find special meaning in Sony’s store above all others? Or do they need to buy the “small luxury” from every store and can’t boycott any?

They probably boycott the Xbox store just fine, and that one’s also full of “small luxuries” so as best I can tell you make a personal preference based argument, which is different from what you think you’re saying.

I don't care

Then don’t worry your pretty little fingers informing us of your uninformed opinion. You get what you give.

You also cowardly avoided my last remark, or just have no idea what that is. Eminent domain says that your government can decide to take something you think you own, thus proving you don’t own it no matter where you put your name on it or how you paid for it.

You don’t have the info “before everyone else”. You have it after the ones who are guaranteed to benefit from knowing it and/or from disseminating it. Whether you can benefit from it or are the mark is debatable.

You’re playing with words here. Mortgages are considered ownership around the world.

It’s only fair I throw a creative wrench in your idea of ownership then: eminent domain. You can never own something if it can just be taken away even if you are compensated.

You painted an accurate picture about how people act in this case and for boycotts in general but let’s be honest, not buying movies from Sony and its store is the last thing most people would “suffer” from. There’s such a large supply of content today that ditching one source for another has almost no real impact.

How much content really is only on Sony’s store, and how much of it would wear you down if you didn’t consume it within X years?

There are truly painful boycotts (try boycotting the only ISP in your area), and boycotts that are an inconvenience. This one is a far cry from losing a luxury or getting worn out.

That sounds like a cost of doing business so the question is whether using this method increases profit more than any other.

I think the bigger point is that people think they “afford” a luxury item as soon as they barely afford to buy it and forget that owning also has a cost. They are too afraid to use the damn thing out of fear that they damage it somehow. Their luxury item loses all meaning and use beyond showing ownership of an expensive thing.

Like those fancy luxury cars some people buy but are too expensive to drive, maintain, insure, or repair. One scratch wipes out their savings so the car sits in the garage.

Children are legally differentiated from adults purely based on age, not some formal verification. You get extra rights and obligations at 18, that’s a very objective criterion.

Declaring someone mentally unfit is anything but objective and it’s very ripe for abuse.

It’s becoming too mainstream is what they mean. Any other not immediately obvious parallel to Windows would have warranted an explanation from the get go.