I do find it quite interesting how people support this idea (because they got a warrant), but are vehemently against the idea of backdooring encryption.
It's been legal in Australia since 2018 and frustratingly nobody seems to give a shit except for yanks trying to point out any government's injustices other than their own.
> This is by far one of the best advertisements for LUKS/VeraCrypt I've ever seen.
LUKS isn't all rainbows and butterflies either [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46708174]. This vulnerability has been known for years, and despite this, nothing has been done to address it.
Furthermore, if you believe that Microsoft products are inherently compromised and backdoored, running VeraCrypt instead of BitLocker on Windows likely won’t significantly improve your security. Implementing a VeraCrypt backdoor would be trivial for Microsoft.
Sadly VeraCrypt is not optimized for SSDs and has a massive performance impact compared to Bitlocker for full disk encryption because the SSD doesn't know what space is used/free with VeraCrypt.
VeraCrypt can be set to pass through TRIM. It just makes it really obvious which sectors are unused within your encrypted partition (they read back as 00 bytes)
Oh I did not know of this option, thanks! However, I was wrong about the reason for the performance loss on high speed SSDs and the issue is actually related to how VeraCrypt handles IRPs: https://github.com/veracrypt/VeraCrypt/issues/136#issuecomme...
Forgive me this shameless ad :) with the latest performance updates, Shufflecake ( https://shufflecake.net/ ) is blazing fast (so much, in fact, that exceeds performances of LUKS/dm-crypt/VeraCrypt in many scenarios, including SSD use.
The performance loss can be substantial on modern NVMe drives, up to 20 times slower. But I was wrong about the reason for the performance loss, it's not TRIM but how VeraCrypt handles I/O operations. You can see some numbers real numbers in this Github issue: https://github.com/veracrypt/VeraCrypt/issues/136
Remember when the original dev of TrueCrypt (the VeraCrypt predecessor) suddenly abandoned the project and wrote that people should use BitLocker instead? [1] [2]
We now know that BitLocker is not secure, and an intelligent open source dev saying that was probably knowingly not saying the truth.
The best explanation to me is that this was said under duress, because somebody wanted people to move away from the good TrueCrypt to something they could break.
alternatively, they knew truecrypt/veracrypt to be irrepairably compromised, and while bitlocker may be backdoored in the same way, it is at least maintained
In order to rack up nearly £100,000 of debt, he'd have to have studied at University for at least eight to ten years. (I'm not knocking him, I'm just saying.)
I'm guessing this no longer qualifies as "modern," since the last update was in 2018 and is no longer in active development, but I'd like to say that the 32bit version of the Tiny C Compiler by Fabrice Bellard works on Windows 98 SE.
The problem isn't lack of control, it's the lazy attitude from parents who're shocked that they have to actually do their own job of raising their progeny.
They'd rather abdicate that responsibility to the government, who in turn love the idea because it means more control.
People aren't forced to have kids though.. If they don't really want them or can't accomodate them in their lives just don't have any. I've never had any because I don't want to give up my freedom and relaxation either.
And one income hasn't been enough for much longer than 5 years. Especially in housing.
I see a lot of people around me that seem to pretty much hate having kids and they probably did it just because of social/family pressure or something. They always treat them like a nuisance and fob them off with a tablet. Really, just don't have them then. The world is already so overpopulated which is one of the causes of tension (migration, fighting over resources, climate/pollution).
I would argue that evolution’s primary driving force is not something so easily resisted. It is literally a person’s only purpose when you strip everything else away. I would be careful to handwave away another person’s desire to have children.
5 years ago single income households were feasible for a subset of the population. Yes that subset has been decreasing for a while. But the last 5 years or so have eroded it so much more.
And pointing at struggling children/parents as the source of society’s ills is a low blow. When there are individual humans who have accumulated so much resources that they can feed an entire country for a few days at a single thought and _still_ have enough left over to live comfortably. You are looking at the wrong place to blame, in my opinion.
> It is literally a person’s only purpose when you strip everything else away.
And then you strip that away too, leaving us with our true purpose at the core of everything else - to simply exist. To live and then to die. That is our true purpose.
I'm not pointing at them as a source of society's ills. I don't think society (as in socially) is ill at all, except for conservatives that are trying to tell us how to live our lives.
I do think the human population as-is is unsustainably big though but I'm not blaming individuals for it. And luckily enough the population growth seems to be plateauing anyway. I think it would be great if we shrink by half or so, life would be a lot easier. Yes, the wealth distribution is a massive issue too, but decreasing this will actually make things worse. All these ultra-rich are just sitting on their money. They have as much money as say 100.000 normal people but they are not buying 100.000x as many things. In fact I often wonder why they care so much about accumulating ever more wealth if they already have so much more than they could ever spend in a lifetime.
But once all the poor people in China and India will want to have a big house, a car etc like us then we will really have a resource problem.
But for me having kids is not a purpose at all. Perhaps that colours my ease with which I dismiss it. I just know several parents that mainly talk about their kids in a dismissive/nuisance way and I wonder why they ever bothered to have them in the first place.
Having children is one of the most basic human instincts, and honestly it's kind of disgusting how you dismiss many parents as obviously hating their kids. Do we complain sometimes? Yes, parenting is hard.
It's both. Saying "the problem" is the parents, implying there's one problem and that's it, is ridiculous. There's a lot of factors that go into why raising a good, caring, strong, self sufficient child is difficult.
We see this same type of argument from the "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps; if you weren't lazy you'd succeed" crowd. It's a stupid argument there, and it's just as stupid here. The world is complicated, and working to improve things from multiple angles is good, and improves the changes of success; for everyone.
The question is, what falls in the scope of social media?
Would IRC count? And considering it's not entirely difficult to set up an IRCd server (you can literally run it on a spare computer or inside a VM), would the state be branding teenagers as criminals for doing so?
>
Would IRC count? And considering it's not entirely difficult to set up an IRCd server (you can literally run it on a spare computer or inside a VM), would the state be branding teenagers as criminals for doing so?
That's the idea: the government wants to set up laws to punish people who set up communication infrastructures that are not officially approved by the government.
reply