digdigdag

> Governments need to do something against this abuse system that AI amplified here.

Which governments, and what exactly would you want these governments to do? The demand is global. There are no levers a single government can pull to meaningfully influence the global demand without fully committing to an protectionist economic policy, in which case the U.S. doesn't have the facilities to magically pop up world class fabs overnight, and South Korea and Taiwan don't have the market demand that the U.S. generates to justify their investments in making these chips and China lacks the IP to be able to build anything comparable to Nvidia's silicon at the moment.

No one has all the cards and no one controls all the levers.

What you're seeing is the distilled (no pun intended) result of realpolitik at play. China's labs aren't as open as they are out of altruism, but rather to capitalize and undercut the monopoly held by U.S. competitors.

Depends. Are you a Chinese/Taiwanese national or diplomat who holds a strategic value to the CCP?

> We didn't review the entire source code

Then it's not fully investigated. That should put any assessments to rest.

My local GPS + PPS based NTP server finally pays off.

None of my opinions of this manifesto are positive. This is a defeatist position. It dangerously conditions people to be more casual about their privacy and safety.

There are still legitimate reasons to clear cookies, to turn off Bluetooth/NFC beaconing, and to occasionally rotate passwords (vis a vis password managers) as it costs nothing to accomplish, and very little in the way of tradeoffs. So...why not?

The probability of a random individual being the target of a sophisticated state sponsored attack is low, but the probability of being caught up in a larger dragnet and for data to be classified, aggregated and profiled is very high. So why not make it just a bit harder for them all?

If anything, let's chip away at this problem bit by bit. Make their life a bit harder...their datacenters a bit hotter. Add random fud to the cookie values, constantly switch VPN endpoints, randomize your mac address on every WiFi association, constantly delete old comments, accounts, create throwaway accounts, create proxies and intermediaries, rotate your password and 2FA -- use any legal means to frustrate any adversarial entities -- commercial or otherwise. They want information? They want your data? Fine, overwhelm them with it. THAT should be the proper modern privacy-focused manifesto. This is utterly bewildering...

...but then I get to the signatories and this nonsense suddenly made all the sense in the world:

> Sincerely, Heather Adkins, VP, Cybersecurity Resilience Officer, Google

> Aimee Cardwell, former CISO UnitedHealthGroup

> Curt Dukes, former NSA IA Director, and Cybersecurity Executive > Tony Sager, former NSA Executive

> Ben Adida, VotingWorks

> Geoff Belknap, Deputy CISO, Microsoft

The corporate CISO club is behind this.

Why would (should) they? The tarrif is biggest contributor to the would-be price increase, and they want to offload the blame to the policies that enacted it.

Why do you think you get a breakdown of governmental fees in your electric or phone bill, but not the tax subsidies?

- Over 50% of the workers flew in from Taiwan to work on this plant and make these chips.

- The chips still need to fly back to Taiwan to be packaged as there are no facilities here with such a capability.

Made in america is a hard sell. But at least showing the glaring STEM field gap in the U.S. is a start to finally addressing the brain drain.

Before anyone jumps on a new text editor band wagon, just a note on the license they have you agree to in using it:

"Customer Data consisting of User content created while using the Solution is classified as "User Content". User Content is transmitted from Your environment only if You collaborate with other Zed users by electing to share a project in the Editor.

[...]Zed's access to such User Content is limited to debugging and making improvements to the Solution."

No commentary from me. Come to your own conclusions.

You can examine the contents of the shell script yourself -- but how is this any different from running the rest of the application without examining the source?

Do you just draw some arbitrary line to say, "running easily readable shell scripts is bad, but compiling and running code I have never looked at or completely understand is okay."?

Really the only logical answer here is to adopt a zero trust security model and just assume every line of code is compromised. Run it in a VM, in a container, firewall it, jail it, sandbox it, etc.

Otherwise you're whispering sweet nothings to yourself if you believe piping unknown scripts to shell is the most vulnerable thing you can do here.

Why not? There are perfectly legitimate uses for this kind of technology. This would be a godsend for those suffering from paralysis and nervous system disorders, allowing them to communicate with their loved ones.

Yes, the CIA, DARPA, et. al. will be all over this (surprisingly if not already), but this is a sacrifice worth making for this kind of technology.

And expensive...and out of reach of most of the people who need it.

Yep. I have Monaco installed on my Linux and Windows machines as a basic requirement for doing any sort of plain text editing.