take responsibility in what sense? CEOs are not responsible in no other sense than to the stockholders and/or the board of directors and to the law. If they don’t break the law then the only responsibility they can take is resigning or being sacked. Failing in usually by not maximizing profits if it’s a for profit corporation. It really is a perfect job for a machine because the job really just requires following a preset directives to a letter even to the point of psychopathy.

The difference is that the most under invested real economy promises little to no profits because of saturation, while these techbros are always ready to promise the moon from the sky. Nothing gets done and less flashy industries stay uncompetitive.

All of these wacky silicon valley startups popping up just shriek very loudly that there is too much capital and not enough real economy to invest all that money into.

Then you need method of power transmission, usually microwaves or lasers, both come with energy losses. With microwaves you need a reliever and those can get about the size of a solar farm.

The man with golden gun only had a ground based “laser” powered by “solar energy”. Die another day had an actual “burning ants with a magnifying glass” tier orbital solar deathray.

Ofc they can’t google, meta and Microsoft are the three pillars of US intelligence gathering network.

There are always a lot of good news. The goods news just don’t make ‘good news’ for the news companies. Nobody wants to read that x metric is slightly better now, disaster was averted, or slight progress was made in world changing new technology. That doesn’t sell subscriptions or bait clicks.

You mean in term of internet archives mission and where it can do the most good? I would agree.

Then the question is “just why”.

I didn’t even know that some games have proton blocked on purpose.

Or this is what the admins want you to think.

Not what I really meant. I was after that one has to trust them to actually provide a suitable and representative coverage on all the papers released on the subject.

It’s cool that shows all the papers and not just some abstract metric or yes or no answer.

it’s still only five topics and you really just have to trust the devs that info is accurate and not biased.

The info-sphere today is already a highly delusional place and news can be often contradictory, even from day to day especially by outlets like BCC who is more focused on setting global narratives, not being a reporter of facts as best understood at the moment. No wonder AI would be confused, most readers are confused when navigating every statement made by experts or anonymous officials on every subject. Seems like this study really measured an AI models ability to vomit out the same text in different words and avoiding using any outside context be it accurate or hallucination.

Yeah there was some Radio Free Asia money connection with the open whisper system that now is Signal.

Of course I don’t have any concrete proof. If there was concrete proof we shouldn’t be having this conversion. My main issue is that it’s centralized and that’s a huge black box. People obsess with this “but it’s protocol open source” like headless chickens when that’s not the issue. Open source is like the step one when it comes to private and secure messaging. It just comes down to if you trust the devs and those doing the hosting. When it’s central all of that thrust rests on that one group and their hosting service not fucking you over even if they can or can not read the encrypted messages themselves. I’m not concerned signal keeping people’s dickpicks private here in that that even whatsapp is as good as any.

I see I made the mistake of coming to an obvious fangirl meeting to have an serious discussion about security merits.

Even if we assume that man in the middle attack is impossible with signal. Intelligence agencies care more about metadata anyway. Remember that getting meaning from terabytes of daily messages hasn’t really been viable way to mass spy anybody until very recently, since you needed humans to read them individually to get any wider sense of chat logs. if they know who talked to who and when. With those they can social graphs and get a list of suspects when everybody is tied to an identifiable phone number. Yeah they won’t directly get incriminating chat of somebody ordering drugs, but they can go nab the dealer and their associates with that info. Or they can have a group of key activists followed if they know that when messages between these people spike just before a protest happens.

Central servers basically. Funded by ex-meta people and endorsements from western governments (general “if it’s popular then it’s compromised” suspicion). Also it requires your phone number gathers things like contact info from the phone, even if one assumes the messages are secure. basically could be seen as relinquishing a list of potential associates…

I don’t think Signal is unsecure, in a sense. it’s just secure for nobodies or anybody who want to use it in non western countries against governments hostile to the west or being designated to regime change targets. I however don’t think it’s much more secure than whatsapp for an high profile pro-Palestine activist for example. It’s a privacy tool for some and honeypot for others depending how they relate to US security state and western governments. Whats better for an intelligence agencies than to have a control of the globally used privacy communication tool.

I’m still convinced that Signal is an NSA honeypot.

The US has surrendered almost all of their manufacturing power and knowledge

Only high tier manufacturing can even compete in the US and that’s because that’s the only place where there are no or very little completion. Us manufacturing alone can only compete with total monopoly. Even then the degradation of manufacturing base makes things difficult and expensive. US science base is mostly there to try manufacturing new monopolies and not so much to serve the manufacturing industries. Failing that they can produce new patents and intellectual property that can then be leased to other companies in other countries and leaving US capital a cut from all the sectors and the their companies that use those patents.