I assumed that not only the entire app but also the entire client device had been audited. This was a client-side attack, not Meta momentarily adding itself to the trusted-device list. I’m confident it was a client-side attack because it would be impossible to hide even a momentary change in keys from the client without modifying the client app to conceal such a change.
Even in an “insecure” app without air-gapped systems or manual encryption, creating a backdoor to access plaintext messages is still very difficult if the app is well audited, open source, and encrypts messages with the recipient’s public key or a symmetric key before sending ciphertext to a third-party server.
If you trust the client-side implementation and the mathematics behind the symmetric and asymmetric algorithms, messages remains secure even if the centralized server is compromised. The client-side implementation can be verified by inspecting the source code if the app is open source and the device is trusted (for example, there is no ring-zero vulnerability).
The key exchange itself remains somewhat vulnerable if there is no other secure channel to verify that the correct public keys were exchanged. However, once the public keys have been correctly exchanged, the communication is secure.
There is no central location to donate to open source software in general. Most open source projects include donation details on their website or in their code repositories.
%20 is the URL-encoded form of a space; %25 is the URL-encoded form of the percent sign. The URL you are posting gets re-encoded and % becomes %25 (in the same way that a space becomes %20)
Could the app be using cell tower data to bypass mock location settings? The Github repository says it identifies a user’s location using cell tower data.
99% isopropyl alcohol is ideal as a solvent or cleaning agent for industries that produce water sensitive items, therefore rapid evaporation and low water content is favorable. 99% USP IPA provides the lowest presence of water and in some forms is free from denaturants. Computer technicians, medical device manufacturers, printed circuit board manufacturers, and soldering and rework technicians prefer immediate evaporation for work with sensitive devices such as integrated circuit adapters, computer chips, and circuit boards. 99% IPA evaporates cleanly and minimizes residual substances. Rapid evaporation reduces shelf life but is more effective against sticky residues, grease, and grime than 70% concentrations. Because isopropanol is hygroscopic, acetone may yield better grime fighting results for inks or oils.
The URL you shared recommends using 99% IPA for electronics.
The individual who readily labels others pedophiles merely for wanting to rescue kids (see Unsworth) yet creates tools lacking any reasonable safeguards against child abuse material (measures that should have been relatively simple to implement) does not meet my definition of success. Likewise, a person who fails to meet his own deadlines is not successful even from some capitalistic perspectives. Someone who constantly seeks validation is not considered successful by most standards. All in all, Musk is an unsuccessful pedo guy.
Planners do a lot of preparatory work before laying cables, but based on the few articles and studies I could find online, it appears they rarely share their findings with the public.
Sabotage can also be carried out without submarines. For example, a ship could drag its anchor along the seabed (whether in the Baltic Sea or the Taiwan Strait) near known locations of internet cables.
If I recall correctly, there were multiple posts in different communities.
I assume that trolls try to provoke erratic and disproportionate reactions from others, becoming a part of their own miniature sitcom for their own entertainment. It could be because of a sense of victory upon watching others break down (assuming a zero sum point of view). It could be the viewpoint that trolls are at their own higher level compared to others and understand each other while making fun of the lower levels (a false sense of superiority). Maybe it’s a [case of] holding onto their own beliefs and assuming that they needn’t change themselves if they disrupt all conversations that may cause harm to their own beliefs. It might be attention seeking or an escape mechanism. It could also be a desire to avoid fitting in with everyone else and remaining separate.
(edit: grammar)
There are some generic observations you can use to identify whether a story was AI generated or written by a human. However, there are no definitive criteria for identifying AI generated text except for text directed at the LLM user such as “certainly, here is a story that fits your criteria,” or “as a large language model, I cannot…”
There are some signs that can be used to identify AI generated text though they might not always be accurate. For instance, the observation that AI tends to be superficial. It often puts undue emphasis on emotions that most humans would not focus on. It tends to be somewhat more ambiguous and abstract compared to humans.
A large language model often uses poetic language instead of factual (e.g., saying that something insignificant has “profound beauty”). It tends to focus too much on the overarching themes in the background even when not required (e.g., “this highlights the significance of xyz in revolutionizing the field of …”).
There are some grammatical traits that can be used to identify AI but they are even more ambiguous than judging the quality of the content, especially because someone might not be a native English speaker or they might be a native speaker whose natural grammar sounds like AI.
The only good methods of judging whether text was AI generated are judging the quality of the content (which one should do regardless of whether they want to use content quality to identify AI generated text) and looking for text directed at the AI user.
If I understand the model you proposed correctly, it basically consists of making a payment to someone (whether an instance or a central authority), obtaining tokens in exchange, giving tokens to a content creator, and the content creator exchanging them to get their money back.
Having a central authority wouldn’t work because it goes against the principles of the Fediverse and most users would prefer that there not be a single point of failure. Having an instance exchange money for tokens wouldn’t work because there is no scarcity of tokens and no guarantee that an instance honours a request.
This method could instead be replaced by content creators adding links to receive payments with people giving money to them directly.
The problem is that there is nothing meaningful you can exchange this currency for. The Fediverse is fundamentally designed to allow anyone to start a server. There is no meaningful way to reward someone with anything of value except the satisfaction of having helped grow the instance they are supporting. There is no good way to boost someone without manipulating the vote count or changing the protocol itself. Many apps already offer customizability while simultaneously being free as in free beer and free as in free speech. The main reason many people move to the Fediverse is to escape an internet where everything is “enshittified,” and most Fediverse users wouldn’t want to shift to a proprietary model.
Is there a specific “undress” button? I tried looking for proof that it exists but couldn’t find any (my searching skills clearly need work). Could you please share a screenshot or point me to a place where I can confirm that it exists?
It’s most likely an error with the nozzle height. The PEI plate not heating up enough shouldn’t cause the adhesion in the photo above (and this is not a first layer problem, as the error is not at a uniform height). Additionally, a few lines are very faintly visible on the plate where they shouldn’t be, indicating nozzle height. Make sure that it is easy to move a piece of paper between the nozzle and the PEI plate when adjusting the height, feeling only a very small amount of pressure as you do so.
That data might be easily accessible, but that was a choice Root made. I think that it is a safe assumption that Root knew most vigilantes keep their identity secret and, assuming a German background, had read Section 202 of the StGB and other relevant laws and court rulings. As such, Root most likely did this despite knowing their identity is at risk. It is likely they did this publicly specifically to inspire others, though I haven’t looked at all the details and there might be a different reason.
Nothing in this comment constitutes legal advice.
Not all hierarchies are bad. For instance, in a judicial system, there need to be different tiers of courts as otherwise, if courts had universal authority and made conflicting decisions, it would complicate the law more so than it is already.
Similarly, in a large society that needs unity, if people make all decisions, the results would be catastrophic as most people don’t have the time or energy to focus on every mundane decision. In such a case, elected representatives becomes mandatory, creating a hierarchy.
Yet another example is cases where fast decision-making is required (e.g., to respond to an emergency). In such a case, there needs to be a central authority who holds others responsible and coordinates response.
Ultimately, if you consider a hierarchy where accountability is possible i.e. one party may have more power over the second than the second over first but the second still has some power over the first, then it makes accountability possible in hierarchies. Hierarchies are only wrong when the power gap increases, a small power gap is alright provided it doesn’t widen with time.
You could make the argument that a chain of accountability is better (X->Y->Z->X), but even such chains may include hierarchies (i.e. X itself is a hierarchy). Similarly, authority diffused among different people also suffers from potential shifting of blame. Truly neutral relations between different parties are impossible and ultimately, a power difference exists between any two parties, though it may be minute, and this power gap must be acknowledged.
In conclusion, there are a lot of disadvantages of hierarchies but there are some domains where hierarchies are good. There is no system of distribution of power that is without flaws.
Enable Administrator password on the menu screen, create a persistent storage (if it doesn’t already exist), download the Flatpak file from the website, and run
torify flatpak install /path/to/file
flatpak run io.github.softfever.OrcaSlicer
Using an AppImage is not a good idea because they have a tendency to give errors if proper software and version are not installed on Tails (on my Tails USB, this was because of GCC) unless you compile your own AppImage. Using Flatpak is better as it allows you to run software on your system even if the versions of GCC etc. are not up to date.
Please keep in mind that I have not confirmed whether this method is secure and would advise that you consider whether this is secure or not depending on your threat model.
Yes, it is visible when a new trusted device is added. The QR code you scan to link a device contains a one-time public key for that device (ECC is used partly to fit the public key more easily into a QR code). Signal on the phone then sends a lot of information, including the identity keys, to the new device. The new device uses these identity keys to communicate. Note that the transfer of identity keys is fully encrypted, with encryption and decryption taking place on the clients. This can, of course, be bypassed if someone you’re talking to has their security key compromised, but the same risk exists if the recipient takes a screenshot or photographs their device’s screen.
Edit: The security key refers to the one-time key pair generated to initiate the transfer of identity keys and chat history. It can be compromised if someone accidentally scans a QR code and transfers their identity keys to an untrusted device.