Even earlier than that there was the killbind. Nothing beats your teammate or opponent finding you in an unfortunate or unexpected moment, taunting as you killbind shortly before they killbind themselves.

That's why I enjoyed TF2 for such a long time. While teamwork will always give you an advantage in matches, you will nearly never find it on public matches and people just do their own thing, and occasionally see a push forming and join in to get further. It also helps that the TTK in TF2 is much longer than in other team based multiplayer games, and you spawn back into it within 10 seconds or so.

Sadly there are so few games that follow that formula of goofy fun and rather just try to make games that are "strategic" or "competitive", which sucks majorly.

I'm not sure about the Proton thing, but yeah, Mailbox sets up PGP for you at server-level, which means they are still unencrypted on the server but will always be sent encrypted.

The initial mode is that they will try to negotiate whether PGP is supported by the other side, with you having the option to always use it for the price of the opposite side having to encrypt them.

You can even enforce it on a case by case basis by adding "secure." To the mailbox.org domain, however I don't know if that is also possible when using your own domain.

A big difference (for some) is that the mailbox is not fully encrypted. However I only see that as a requirement if there is an actual potential threat against you (like as a journalist).

Also, Mailbox has app passwords, so you can control which applications can access it and a simple revocation will end it. Connecting directly is not possible for security reasons.

They also offer 25 free aliases, 50 additional ones if you use your own domain. And they do make it rather easy to set up the necessary records to send via your domain. Plus throwaway addresses (which will only exist for 90 days each and can only receive emails).

Ehrlich gesagt finde ich die ganze Studie für nutzlos, besonders da es so viele Aspekte ignoriert. Leider ein gutes Beispiel wie Statistik die Wissenschaft der Politik ist.

Zum einen wird dem iPhone die größeren Probleme in Amerika zugeschrieben, wie zum einen die Stigmatisierung des Mannes (sowohl der Verbreitung der toxischen "Männlichkeit" als auch der angenommene Mitschuldigkeit als Mann) als auch der Verstärkung von Sicherheitsmaßnahmen, welches das öffentliche Treffen einer Gruppe unbequemer macht.

Auch finde ich die Aussage, dass keine Begründung warum das Problem nicht bei Afroamerikaner zu bemerken ist, lächerlich. Die Personengruppe ist war/ist eben einer der größten unterdrückten Minderheiten, welche in der Vergangenheit sehr oft zusammengepfercht wurde, was einfach für einen stärkeren Zusammenhalt und ein stärkeres Gefühl einer Gemeinschaft geführt hat.

I find that move extremely funny, since it's purely made for sensationalism and nothing else. I mean, if you hate how systems implemented age verification, then why don't you remove its identity verification too, i.e. also optional fields for stuff like your address an e-mail that most users don't even fill out.

There is no mechanism verifying what birth date you type in - you can type whatever date you want and systems doesn't care.

I'd say no matter where you stand with age verification, this is the best solution to handle the situation. After all, any and all age checks we have nowadays are a black box anyways. There is no real knowing how other systems are checking ages, and there is AFAIK no real government mandated rules on how it is verified. They could make you scan your ID's front, back, nuclear composition and dietary preferences and give you a result that is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike a proper age verification procedure.

If the government wants to introduce age verification, they have to do it themselves - build an API that handles the age verification, similar to how the digital ID in Germany works, as an example. If they want proper age verification, they also have to take the blame themselves if things go wrong.

Funnily enough, Signal has circumvented the issue by marking their chat window as DRM content, making it invisible to Recall.

I had this problem at work a week ago or so, at least with Fujitsu PCs. For them, the main cause isn't an empty CMOS battery, but rather that Fujitsu generally had too little BIOS cache, since there is nothing about it in the UEFI standard. The update basically overfilled that cache, rendering the BIOS completely unusable. The POST doesn't even go through fully.

The PC are sort of bricked, you gotta put the mainboard into recovery mode, put the ROM file on a freeBSD formatted stick and wait until you see instructions on the screen. Follow them, restart the PC. I recommend setting the BIOS to the optimized default settings, as not doing that might make the boot of Windows pretty slow in some cases. I did hear that it can delete the keys from the TPM, but I haven't seen that with my PCs at work.

Maybe trying to be objective is the wrong choice here? After all, it might sound preachy to those who are ignorant to the dangers of AI. Instead, it could be better to stay subjective in hopes to trigger self-reflection.

Here are some arguments I would use for my own personal 'defense':

• I like to do the work by myself because the challenge of doing it by my own is part of the fun, especially when I finally get that 'Eureka!' moment after especially tough ones. When I use AI, it just feels halfhearted because I just handed it to someone else, which doesn't sit right with me.
• when I work without AI, I tend to stumble over things that aren't really relevant to what I'm doing, but are still fun to learn about and might be helpful sometimes else. With AI, I'm way too focused on the end result to even notice that stuff, which makes the work feel even more annoying.
• when I decide to give up or realize I can't be arsed with it, I usually seek out communities or professionals, because that way it's either done professionally or I get a better sense of community, but overall feel like I'm supporting someone. With AI, I don't get that feeling, but rather I only feel either inferior for not coming up with a result as fast as the AI does or frustrated because it either spews out bullshit or doesn't get the point I'm aiming for.

And insurances provide monetary compensation until you become a common liability, too high to be covered by any sort of fee. DDOS protection is just the same. It's only feasible if it happens rarely, like they usually happen. However if it's a common occurrence it will just eat up the profits made by the fees and then some, which just is stupid to do in any case.

I think the main problem is that people try to shoehorn OOP mechanics into everything, leading to code that is hard to understand. Not to mention that this is basically encouraged by companies as well, to look "futuristic". A great example of this approach going horribly wrong is FizzBuzz Enterprise Edition.

OOP can be great to abstract complex concepts into a more human readable format, especially when it comes to states. But overall it should be used rarely, as it creates a giant code overhead, and only as far as actually needed.

@[email protected] mentioned it in another reply in this post. It's a Destroying Angel Mushroom. you usually avoid mushrooms like that by only foraging those who have no simulacrae and buying the other mushrooms in the store, or by intensely studying the differences and hoping you are lucky this time.

Honestly it's pretty sad how Viruses changed from a sort of artform to just a money making scheme / espionage tools.

Honestly, Telegramm always seemed to me a bit shifty since I learnt E2EE for chats was opt-in.

Linus Torvals talk at the Aalto University. Specifically a segment where he talks about how hard it is to work with Nvidia when it comes to the Linux kernel.

What's up with the sink plug thing?

Also, if anyone wants to learn writing code, they should first ask themselves what engine they want to use. C# and python seem to be the most sensible stuff. If someone's interested in Godot, then I can recommend the free course by GDQuest. It does teach some few basics for scripting, and their paid courses are very good thanks to their inbuilt practices and encouragement for experimentation. It does cost quite a bit and is still in Beta however.

If understanding the logic of programming is a struggle, then Scratch is a great tool for understanding it.

While I have no idea about legality, it is quite obvious that X/Twitter is not really run as a company run as a public communications platform, but rather as a fever dream of Musk.

Especially the Eli Lily Co. disaster should've been a wake up call for X of how much harm the fake checkmarks can bring, yet nothing was done. Most likely because Elon Musk didn't care. He basically runs it like it's how little service that he fully owns and controls with full disregard to anything but his own vision.

Therefore including his other businesses makes sense, as the fine that is only based on X's income would probably be negligible in his opinion, as he runs it on a loss anyways. Only bigger fines would actually have any effect in my opinion.

Not to be a smartass, but wouldn't the answer to the question be either 'yes' or 'no'? It was the following question after all.

The question is whether this actually is E2EE, as it's easy to fake by using a man in the middle attack and hard to prove. The only real way to prove it for sure is to run a third party security audit, like Signal does.

Taking down the old system doesn't inspire confidence either, as this downtime could easily been used to interrupt old conversations in order to implement a way to decrypt the messages on the servers before passing it on to the actual recipient, as all keys would have to be re-issued.

I'm not the one who you asked, but I'd still give some feedback of my own. Musk as a person is a difficult character. I would even go as far as calling him narcissistic.

• He got thrown out of PayPal for his incessant micromanagement and disruptions to the flow of the company
• he bought himself into Tesla to replace the CEO with himself
• he tends to depict himself as one of the greatest tech geniuses out there, yet often the plans he presents to the public are often poorly thought out and serve no other purpose than to show his "talents"
• when his proposal to build a tiny submarine for the Than Luang cave rescue was shot down and a British diver was chosen instead he resorted to call the diver a "pedo guy"
• his latest attempts in politics, especially concerning DOGE feel completely half baked and, again, how he presents himself in his position feels more like an ego trip than something more reasonable
• he publicly had talks with the controversial German political party "Alternative für Deutschland", which are currently legally considered "assured right-wing extremists" and have had a history of having Nazis and Nazi sympathisers in their ranks

I generally can't trust someone who seems to put himself first at everything to handle anything related to security when the role allows him to exploit it for his own gains. And I do not trust someone who supports political groups known for trying to oppress minorities to defend actual rights for free speech.