hellojesus

It took me about an hour. I sat down, read the docs, installed it via the web installer, then spent the next 45 min deciding how I wanted to segment separate profiles for play services.

Nowadays it seems a lot easier because there seems to be a separate profile isolater you can run in the main profile, which I would choose if I was installing today.

The only hiccup I've had is that sometimes group messages don't send correctly and send individual messages to everyone, but I think that's because I'm on a secondary profile, and it only happens when the phone is receiving a bunch of messages all at once while I try to send to the same group. But I deny network access to my installed swype keyboard, so it may have something to do with that too.

I've been running this for years, since the Pixel 7 came out, which I'm still using.

I love it. I can confidently go through customs knowing that if they yank my phone during some weird checkpoint and try to celbrite it, I'm as secure as can be.

But shouldn't the extension of logic be the same in either case, even if there is some premature convergence criteria? I have yet to see someone say age verification is okay because the gov ensure X is the maximum use of the tech. If anything, Public Choice Theory compels the grant that the gov will misuse the data given enough time.

I was asking the Google llm search about why iterative games don't reach their competitive equilibrium the round after revealing the theory. In my example, it was the "guess 2/3 the average game", and I asked it why my class didn't immediately converge to zero after it was explained. The llm said people are lazy and I have autism because I couldn't identify or understand the stopping criteria used by my classmates. I'm still confused.

I vented to one of those call-center people trying to sell me a cheaper power utility for the Nth time, and told her to find another job or something like that

I threaten to kill and rape them all the time, but that usually doesn't do much.

I've found that politely asking them to kill themselves elicits much more engagement, and I hope it at least implants some lasting memory.

Maybe I am the fool. :) I think about crime in the way I would do it, which is to grab the valuables police are unlikely to care about (hard drives) that allow me to quickly clone and encrypt myself, so I can destroy the tangible evidence, and then I have unlimited time to crack and review the information, and then even more time to execute my malicious attack against identities or whatever other I information I do find.

Only slightly better than this would be to break in, install a root kit, and then leave everything else untouched so as to try and minimize the knowledge that I was there, but I'd still be concerned that my c2 server would eventually point to me.

Maybe I should read about these actual crimes or get meds. The first couple years of my first kid's life were full of anxiety that someone would break in and steal my kid while I was sleeping at night.

I'd argue the proper solution here is backup, as a hdd could die at anytime and leave you with approximately the same outcome. While encryption adds some overhead and increases the surface area for failure, it ultimately requires the same backup solution as anything else.

I roll my eyes at my friend when he explains the solutions for how to input the encryption password when his server restarts.

Isn't this rather trivial? You gen a keyfile, register it with luksAddKey, then update /etc/crypttab, no? The real concern is making sure that keyfile is stored securely, but you can simply symmetrically encrypt it and upload it to your favorite cloud storage provider.

Agreed, specifically about the tax info concerns. All my drives are encrypted with either luks, veracrypt, or native zfs encryption if my server data.

My primary concern is a robbery while I'm not home. It's trivial to break in, steal hard drives, and then go pop them into another machine on your own time to scan the files looking for tax or other sensitive docs.

While encryption keys are a risk, you can always save the random key file or passphrase in cloud storage (using symmetric encryption) and/or in your password manager.

Agreed. Ben Felix has a video about this, I think he focused on SpaceX in it. The problem with the standard total market funds is they gobble it up right away. There are funds that do wait some period of time to purchase new ipos to let them smooth out, but I'm not sure those are typically available in 401k plans.

Hedge funds already know broad based mutuals will have to purchase these so can sneak in before them and then sell to them for a marginal gain. Mayhaps the newest strategy for exiting is generating so much hype that you're guaranteed an exit by retail retirement funds?

How is it fraud? Wouldnt it just be a tos violation?

In my view, anyone participating in these markets does so knowing that the outcomes are within the control of other participants. I can't think of any other reason individual account activity is public.

Yahoo answers gave us MBMBAM. For that I will always be thankful.

If it's unregulated, how are people getting charged with insider trading?

Agreed. I don't really know how the current process works, but I would assume there is some level of oversight, meaning that errant (unqualified) applicants shouldn't detract from a qualified h1b under the current system any more than a centralized one. Tying a profile to a human (gov can do this) should at least help with determining whether an applicant is qualified (not that they are an actual fit for the team) which could provide some proxy for fitness of the current pool.

Isn't the correct response to the sham hirings to regulate that jobs are posted on a gov-run board for some period of time, ~30 days, before you can claim no qualified workers? That seems more reasonable than turning the spigot off entirely.

It's shocking to me that the gov is allowed to claim "backlog" to defer one of the functions the gov is actually supposed to do. They print the money. They can hire enough to fulfill their obligation with almost zero effort.

This is the part that is the wildest to me. The current system seems to generate a collection of second-class citizens: people we openly rely on for labor but that have no recourse if they're exploited and no regulatory protections such as minimum wage (even though I argue against min wage, if we're going to have it, have it!).

My personal preference would be to allow nearly unlimited legal immigration but strip welfare programs for all. In this way we allow anyone and everyone to become an economic participant, voting participant after the naturalization process, and mitigate those immigrating purely for handouts.

But I haven't thought through this policy well. Maybe there is something this seemingly solution is missing.

Why not? Here are some scenarios where you may want protection:

- The feds show up

- A bugular breaks in and grabs your computer

- You're selling your house and host an open house

- You have curious children and want to keep them from live booting and reading your tax returns

Sorry if I was unclear. My "race to the bottom" occurs because a privacy-preserving pass allows actors to hand out free passes to those the system is seeking to deny entry. E.g., An adult can generate valid keys and then publish them online for anyone to consume (or charge for them even).

My hypothesis is that this would lead to demands for policy changes to prevent that, which can realistically only be done via actual identification or hardware based attlestation (which is identification).

Does that seem wrong? If we didn't care if people could bypass the system, there is no reason to force even privacy preserving barriers, since parents literally have all the tools necessary to deal with this now, from router guards, to parental controls on computers, to device enrollment for iPhone and android systems.

Weird. I call myself a developer because I don't have an engineering degree from an abet certified engineering program.

I recognize, in some capacity, that this isn't the norm and in the US "professional engineer" is protected and not simply "engineer", but it feels akin to stolen valor to me.

You should just determine which carrier hosts the phone number and then go get a job there as a customer service agent or store employee. You'll get full permissions to change accounts, so you'll be able to make the change, fix your gmail, then change it back.

You probably risk some legal fallout though, so be cautious.

Makes sense and apologies if I came off that way. I just skip to the logical conclusion, which is that there is no way this is going to happen without a race to the bottom, ending by forcing privacy violations. But maybe I'm wrong. I'll be a bit more cautious with my posts.

Thank you. This helps my understanding, and I would find this solution the proper one if we determine that this road must be walked.

But I still have reservations that this would be the "foot in the door", because people like me will generate and publish tokens publicly, and then lobbyists will use this as the reason why we can't allow the use of private keys unless the website receiving them can certify they belong to the user presenting them, thus forcing a rework of the implementation.

I'm a licensed ham! Though I've never actually done anything ham-related. I just wanted a license plate with a call sign.

But then I learned that anyone can look up my name and home address from my call sign and decided not to publicly advertise when I'm not home.

The APL readers still get you without the cars transceiver. Plus if you have automatic tire pressure sensors, those are mandated to communicate in plaintext over rf when sending the data to the car, from my understanding, and you can farm those to track location by setting up radios next to roadways.

The cars themselves phone home all the time. You have to physically remove the transceiver to prevent it or run a jammer nonstop at the risk of a felony.

Friday 1pm ET markets close, so news doesn't affect stock prices until the following Monday, giving emotions time to settle and everyone an approximately equal opportunity to react.

This doesn't seem like market-moving material, but maybe it's just status quo.

Thanks. I appreciate the link. One thing I wasn't able to fully understand from the Kagi article: how does this solve the problem of "token handoff"? For example, if User A generates a token (from an unlimited search acct) and hands it to User B, whom has no association with Kagi, how does Kagi block User B's access? Or do they just assume it's fine because the token count is capped at a low enough value as to make it unprofitable for me, as a user, to purchase an unlimited search plan and then resell my plan at a lower price (making a profit on volume) by handing out my precomputed tokens to my resold subscribers to use?

The whole point is that they CAN identify you (to verify your age), but in... well a privacy-preserving manner :-).

But how can this be done so that the site and I'd verifier can't collude on a backchannel to unmask you?

In a non-functional democracy, I guess don't complain if someone burns your car "to counter the state" some day if you think like this.

I don't advocate for destroying private property. Sharing tokens doesn't destroy property or ip/copyright.

My desktop doesn't have Bluetooth. Does this mean I'd be doomed even if I had a compatible mobile device?

I know that's the final destination, but I didn't see that listed in the requirements page linked above. Any proof of this affecting the current implementation?