I think it's worth pointing out "no longer" is not a fair assessment since this is regularly an issue with older Americans.
I'm inclined to believe it was never taught in schools, and is probably more likely to be a subject teachers are increasingly likely to want to teach (i.e. if politics didn't enter the classroom it would already be being taugh, and might be in some districts).
The older generations were given catered news their entire lives, only in the last few decades have they had to face a ton of potentially insidious information. The younger generations have had to grow up with it.
A good example is that old people regularly click malicious advertising, fall for scams, etc, they're generally not good at applying critical thinking to a computer, where as younger people (typically though I hear this is regressing some with smartphones) know about this stuff and are used to validating their information (or at least have a better "feel" for what's fishy).
No, you can set up PGP encryption to send PGP encrypted mail to non-proton customers via Proton. They've also been trying to work on standards that would make retrieving public keys/knowing the recipient accepts PGP automatic.
You're blatantly misinformed, and it's irritating.
Edit: I've blocked this person following their reply, but to their last point, "via Proton" literally means you use their service as a standard PGP mail client no strings attached, that can interact with any other PGP, and with no vendor lockin. That is literally the definition of using an open standard. There's no insidious plot here.
That mentality is part of the problem. More options is not inherently better, it's more to maintain, more complexity, more feature requests in that direction ("well can I store a PGP key in the browser that isn't uploaded to your servers so I can read my non-synced PGP mail", "can I write mail using that", "oh I changed my mind, can I convert mail to your PGP key from my PGP key", "oh I changed my mind again, I'd actually like all my emails changed to my PGP key", "oh could you sync my PGP key for me", etc).
It happens all the time, bending over backwards as a company for niche customers that want to use your toaster as a waffle iron rarely works out well.
You went to a custom shoe maker and said "make me a custom shoe" then you went back to them and said "I wanted to do it myself! Why won't you let me change out the insoles in these shoes!"
You could checkout a very similar product, ZeroTier (Open Source Community Edition) assuming your use case is non-commercial.
... if you're willing to use an older release, you could potentially do whatever you want as the software uses a BSL license with a change date fallback license of Apache 2.0.
The funny thing is... for me it wasn't even the API changes, it was how Steve reacted to the community feedback. If you need to make your app profitable that's fine by me, but don't ignore your customers so bluntly. They could've easily worked politely with devs to find an agreeable API price, find alternative funding streams for those devs, etc. They did none of that, instead Steve acted like a jerk.
I think this is somewhat overstated (also a dev), but there's definitely truth to it. The division of work needs to be clear from the start, and ideally the design done collaborative to really have additional devs help.
Part of the problem is we all think different, so even two brilliant devs can step on each others toes and cause problems if they're not synced up on what the plan is.
I think realistically, we need to give our anti-monopoly laws teeth, and give them automatic effect. Hard and fast rules (thought out to catch loop holes) like "there can't be one company with more than 15% of any market which directly affects more than 45% of citizens on an annual basis."
Similarly, clearing up political funding regulations, preventing insider trading by representatives, and preventing obvious "bribe" jobs post representation.
FWIW, I think Socialism is interesting, but I think the influence of human greed is too strong in a socialist system. In a true socialist system, rather than capital gains being a route to power, the greedy have one route, government. I think this is fundamentally the reason why no attempts at creating a socialist society have actually... worked.
The best I think we can get is a well regulated market, but we need to actually ensure it's well regulated and not just serving some people that gobbled up the competition so they could sit by idle and cozy.
FWIW, I would also consider moving the oversight of federal law enforcement into its own federally elected office. i.e., we elect local sheriff's, we should elect a "National Director of Law Enforcement" in charge of overseeing the FBI, IRS, TSA, US Marshall Service, etc.
Database being a singular entity, holding up all the information, can be prone to manipulation.
I agree with most of what you said, but I just wanted to add... Nothing is beyond manipulation, there's plenty of experience out there monitoring traditional databases, and software intended to aid in tracking down tampering retroactively:
Does a ("proper") block chain make it harder to tamper in the first place? Yes, in theory, but is the associated cost really worth it? (If you ask me, the number of times it's actually worth using a blockchain is a near zero number).
Proton offers a service where they hide all your messages for you, but in a way they can't even see. This person is complaining that they can't hide their messages from proton in a different way that they're likely to screw up.
You are literally trusting them to encrypt all your mail.
If you don't trust their encryption, respectfully, don't use them. It's faux logic to "need" a secondary key that isn't cloud synced in an end to end encrypted mail vault.
This is an unnecessary product complication, and I agree with proton that you're more than likely to get it wrong and your "more secure" key will be used in a less secure manor.
It's the same reason most people shouldn't self host things like Bitwarden. Doing it yourself is not a security feature anymore than wiring your own home is protecting it.
Dark Arc @ Dark_Arc @lemmy.world Posts 35Comments 228Joined 2 yr. ago
I think it's worth pointing out "no longer" is not a fair assessment since this is regularly an issue with older Americans.
I'm inclined to believe it was never taught in schools, and is probably more likely to be a subject teachers are increasingly likely to want to teach (i.e. if politics didn't enter the classroom it would already be being taugh, and might be in some districts).
The older generations were given catered news their entire lives, only in the last few decades have they had to face a ton of potentially insidious information. The younger generations have had to grow up with it.
A good example is that old people regularly click malicious advertising, fall for scams, etc, they're generally not good at applying critical thinking to a computer, where as younger people (typically though I hear this is regressing some with smartphones) know about this stuff and are used to validating their information (or at least have a better "feel" for what's fishy).