dispose13432

The "boringification" of computers will bring us back to the 70s.

If we have to prove _everything_ on your computer, from your calculator or Pokemon, how much do you think a license of windows will cost? $250,000?

Linux/FreeBSD/OpenBSD/Minix will be dead (no one to sponsor certification and then put it in the public).

Crazy "best-practices" (change passwords every couple days, password must include symbols, letters, numbers, upper-case and lower-case in a random order, but be no shorter or longer than eight characters)

Must have a full team of lawyers to prove that everything done fit the letter of the law, and that any hacks are not your responsibility

"Shinyness" is what allows you to have free VSCode and Atom.

Sure, I miss the 70s when you could get a text editor measured in bytes (but, btw, electron is probably more secure than 70s unix) but I definitely like the cost/convenience of modern software.

I have no problems with that guy. I have problems with all those guys who signed the key.

And, again, as you mentioned, those were security experts.

You think that your neighbor won't fall for that?

I'm saying that taxes will go through the nose (close to 25%) for everyone with quite questionable benefits (will barely pay for rent).

>Only some will be given free money,

I thought the idea is that everyone from Bill Gates to the beggar will be given it?

>Since it's designed to study the disincentives to work, by the end of the study it's likely to include many employed people.

On the other hand, people realize that UBI may go away any day.

What will be when canceling UBI has as much chance as canceling Minimum wage?

EDIT

Sorry. My mistake

> Entire point of SSL/TLS is to ensure end to end authenticity and confidentiality.

The point is that country A can strongarm a certificate authority under their domain to sign any certificate they want. So if A wants to MITM google or github they can, and there's no way for you to know which certificate is the real one and which is the fake.

1. Key pinning.

2. Certificate transparency

3. Can't do it "accidentally". That's why a lot of people have 2 foot high fences, not that you can't jump over them but to create the atmosphere that this is private, and if you get caught there you can't say "oops".

4. Non-government (malicious router) can't MITM.

>access to free lawyers at least for the poor etc is more important than access to the legal databases

That itself is a problem, while we have public defense lawyers, we don't have public preventive lawyers (who I can call and ask if what I'm about to do is altogether legal and what can I do to avoid run-ins with the law).

My question is:

1. How often does this happen?

2. Hoe many tests did SpaceX do before the first FT launch?

Considering that most rockets don't use supercooled fuels, I would expect insane tests (they can't rely on NASA's historical data).

>And the reason people initially used Facebook, Skype, and WhatsApp is not that they were easier to use or better. It's advertising. Notice how all of these are proprietary software made by companies with the means to advertise their software? You can bet people would use GnuPG, Diaspora, and XMPP if they had been advertised by companies like Facebook and Microsoft.

I know quite a few non-techies who use VLC, Firefox, LibreOffice, and other OS advertising-less projects. The difference is:

1. Facebook, Skype and WhatsApp solved problems others didn't and became big. Now it's too late to fight.

Had Diaspora been around before FB, and as easy to work with (put name here, picture here, password here, friend here. You're all set up. Let's go), or XMPP been around before Skype (which is a very old program in internet time), or Kontalk,Signal, etc. been around before WhatsApp (find friends by number, not by username), they probably would have taken off (at least to some degree).

Google came late onto the Desktop scene (Chromebooks) and are not successful while the incumbent (MS) is good.

MS came late onto the mobile scene and failed, while the incumbent (Google) is good.

That's why insurance isn't the end-all/be-all.

They've got enough money out of insurance to build themselves a new satellite, the problem is that they need that satellite yesterday, not today.

On the other hand, SpaceX isn't living off poor blokes who were hoodwinked by a starry-eyed agent. Their customers are professionals with lawyers and accountants taking care of things, so I don't feel that SpaceX is particularly unethical.

So let's go through a hypothetical situation:

A has friend 1 and 2. He vets them, checks their ID, goes to a key-signing party, trusts that they are 1 and 2 with his life.

Now he gets an email from "5000" who claims that he's from the IRS and needs to know information from you.

You look up this "5000"s signature.

Now, none of A's friends work in the IRS, but "5000" was signed by "500","302","201" and another 500 people.

"302" was signed by "23", "23" was signed by "2".

Should "A" send him the info?

Theoretically, he can call "2", ask him how "2" knows "23", then call "23" on behalf of "2", and so on.

But he doesn't know if "23" is honest, and all the more so "302".

And what if "302" says that he knows who he is because he self-identified as "5000 from the IRS" at a bar?

Too much thinking.

Now imagine A is the kind of person who downloads EXEs to view cat pictures?