Tailscale uses wireguard, which is better in a lot of ways compared to OpenVPN. It's far more flexible, secure, configurable and efficient. That said, you probably won't notice a significant difference
There is no level on which it is their job to find solutions for problems. That is not a job description nor what they do. Their job is to guess which investments will earn them money.
Problems solving is accidental and done by other people. Also, their have zero incentives to care about social problems or about problems of people who are not rich.
Avoid using your phone, don't install apps, don't rely on it for anything, and stick it in a drawer most of the time. Phones have ALWAYS been a bad bet for privacy, and we've been losing this cat and mouse game for years. I agree that what's happening lately seems like a real watershed moment, but the writing has been on the wall for a long time.
There's a part of me that wishes Firefox OS remained viable and overcame its problems where it could've become a viable alternative. I'm hopeful for the future of Linux phones, but I've yet to see a product that looks like it's reliable and works well..
The problem extends far deeper than just FOSS for mobile and IoT. There isn't competitive OSHW. The entire pipeline for silicon hardware development (PCB dev is relatively easy) is virtually locked away behind gates that require identity and/or address verification, node-locked trial licenses or sometimes big license fees paid to one or more big 3 EDA vendors. And that's even before getting anywhere need talking to a fab.
If memory serves me right, in early days of Android, Google engineers were writing drivers on behalf of manufacturers because OEM drivers were too buggy.
Think about the amount of work and the kind of talent this requires.
If you are starting from scratch today as a no-name company, I doubt any hardware manufacturers even want to talk to you.
I'll add to this that libadwaita is really good, and manages to scale applications between desktop and mobile extremely well. Far better than any other mobile-desktop convergence I've seen before. Flatpak also offers a very good method for distributing apps in an easy and largely decentralized way.
This is orthogonal to GrapheneOS; GrapheneOS's utility is being eroded by Device Attestation, but this change is irrelevant as GrapheneOS will already fail strict attestation.
Maybe I missed it, but assuming GrapheneOS doesn't adhere to this verification, or provides some OS-level way to disable it, what makes Graphene worse after this change?
GrapheneOS is only allowed to live because google lets it. This signals a wider ecosystem change that tells us that GrapheneOS is going to stop being usable when this generation of hardware dies. This generation or maybe the one after it.
What do you mean with "Google lets it"? GrapheneOS is based on AOSP.
GrapheneOS only runs on the Google Pixels, and Google may decide to render future Pixels unusable for GrapheneOS (e.g. by preventing to unlock/relock the bootloader).
But another Android manufacturer could get to the point where GrapheneOS endorses them. It feels like it shouldn't be that hard for an Android manufacturer, and they would immediately get quite some attention. Maybe not mainstream attention, but largely profitable, I think.
GrapheneOS exists only because the Pixel's bootloader can be unlocked. Google could remove that option anytime, making it impossible to install GrapheneOS.
Buy a Linux phone or contribute to development of the Linux phone ecosystem, and accept that while it may lag behind in features, it makes up for that in freedom and privacy. Potentially keep a cheap Apple/Android around for stuff like banking software that only works on them.
Aren't there only two rules that all groups follow in the animal kingdom?
- don't lie too often
- don't kill members of the in group
Seems like these would be required for any group to survive, which makes sense why they are universal. All other rules/ethics seem to be dependent on resource scarcity.
Groups don't follow rules as such, group behaviours emerge from the interaction of individual behaviours.
As to whether all groups display those rules - I suspect not - though it rather does depend on how you define a group - the definition of group probably has some sort of colloboration built in ( as oppose to a bunch of indviduals that happen to live in the same geographic area ).
>All other rules/ethics seem to be dependent on resource scarcity
That doesn't make the rest of the ethics (as a rule and mechanism) any less useful to help nurture the species and its intelligence.
It just makes them not absolute but dynamic and condition dependent. But given a condition (e.g. resource scarcity) the appropriate ethics retain the utility we talk about.
True, but the original sin was using phone numbers as proof of identity. The fundamental problem is average users cannot use passkeys, manage their own crypto keys, or understand that for identity to work, there cannot be an authority based recovery method.
The market simply does not care, and businesses are acting accordingly and picking the lowest friction option with acceptable levels of fraud.
What’s odd to me is that they dont even have a method for more advanced users to not use numbers. I think perhaps Digital Credit Union may be the only bank in the US using passkeys.
Alternatively, you could make a Nix flake that can generate an immutable microVM image based on Solo5, running a MirageOS unikernel that implements NAT traversal with UDP hole punching and relay fallback. This image can be deployed to Fly.io as a lightweight, autoscaling Firecracker VM with per-second billing. It boots in milliseconds and costs far less than Lambda.
Any reason to use lambda vs this cloud-agnostic approach? Maybe I am missing something. I guess per second vs per 100ms billing, but I can't imagine it ends up being cheaper with Lambda.
Absolutely - there are plenty of more cost-effective, cloud-agnostic ways to build something like this. This is just an experiment to explore Lambda networking and push it beyond its intended use cases.
Not sure we can conclude much there tbh, their own numbers and the numbers in other studies they mention show truly enormous ranges for their rather small sample sizes. Plus, if they're right and the contamination is mostly coming from cap damage, it'd vary immensely by the kind (and treatment) of the cap and luck on how much damage it got, and not the kind of bottle, even if they do currently correlate.
So a useful study to say "stop painting the insides of caps, duh" but it hardly seems like anything intrinsic to the container. And hard to extrapolate to other areas which may not paint their caps, or anything that uses corks.
I don't think they're painting the insides, it sounds like the bottling machine has a hopper full of caps, and they rattle around in production and chip microscopic bits of paint off and those stick to the insides and everywhere, until washed off by the booze.
Ah, yep, you're correct - I was misinterpreting the pictures in the paper. On rereading, they seem pretty clear about it being paint on the outside that somehow gets on the inner surface.
Though also:
>The results show that glass containers were more contaminated than other packaging for all beverages except wine, because wine bottles were closed with cork stoppers rather than metal caps.
So yeah. Cap differences, probably for fashion more than function, which are probably easily remedied.
One super annoying issue I've found is that if you enable Smartthings on Samsung TVs, and you try to use your phone app as a remote, they ask for microphone access EVERY TIME I USE THE APP. The options are "Enable" and "Cancel". I click cancel, the remote works for 3 minutes, then stops working and I have to force restart the app and do it again. All for a feature I use if I can't find my physical remote.
Seriously. I hate these companies with a passion. It's crazy that right now the only alternative is to not use smart features / wifi. There's not even a good Android TV option. The best I can do is just run VLC on a computer connected to the screen (Kodi has an awful UI/UX, in my opinion). Plex used to be good before they became awful. AppleTV is the only semi-decent device, but it requires a iCloud login.
Miracle seems to imply that the outcome is not what one would expect when pricing rise. Demand goes down when prices go up, and alternatives get used more frequently. This is precisely what anyone who understand economics would think. Why is this surprising or miraculous? Is that tongue-in-cheek?
First of all, "anyone who understand economics" understands that "supply and demand" is a generalization, not the only two variables in a void.
More relevantly though, it is a "Policy Miracle", i.e. the writer is saying it's a miracle that an effective policy was finally enacted. In the second sentence: "but Governor Hochul finally made the right decision". The writer also praises how effective it is, not just that it is effective.
Driving is highly elastic and among economists this is well-known and beyond serious dispute. A regularly updated review of the literature is available at https://www.vtpi.org/elasticities.pdf
Yeah I'm sorry you're being downvoted because your intuition is shared by a lot of people but is actually a pretty common fallacy (and one I believed before I started reading about transit policies a while ago now.) There's a long-tail of driving demand which is very elastic and the only reason why it exists is because the US underprices driving and builds expensive road infrastructure to lower LOS areas than most of the world. When he was a bit younger, my dad was the type to often just "go out for a drive" and drive in circles for a while just to clear his head. On its face that seems fine, like going out for a walk, but then you realize that my dad was just taking up a limited throughput resource for a very low-value use. My partner's family who actually lives close to NYC used to take drives to Manhattan "for fun" for years actually.
That's the crazy thing. Driving into lower Manhattan costs society hundreds of dollars, but to an apparently huge fraction of drivers it wasn't even worth nine lousy dollars.
Yeah I know. I was shocked when I learned my partner's family drove to Lower Manhattan "because why not?" But there just is a lot of long tail behavior like this.
A large number of cars in general are driving around with no particular reason. Roads are free to use and the costs of driving are sunk/hidden so why not?
I interpreted the miracle to be that it achieves a political goal AND makes money.
From TFA:
“… congestion pricing is a policy unicorn - it accomplishes a key goal (reducing congestion) and raises money. This is in contrast with highway widenings which are the opposite: they cost money (often billions of dollars) and fail to accomplish the goal of reducing traffic due to induced demand.”
reply