The DMCA takedown seems to be specifically about Ryujinx’s ability to decode ROMs. Circumventing DRM is in fact illegal according to the DMCA so they appear to have a valid argument. However, in their takedown notice they assume that the decryption keys are obtained illegally. I’m wondering if the DMCA forbids extracting the decryption keys (without distribution) from your own legitimately owned Nintendo hardware for personal backup. If so, then the Ryujinx feature might also be defensible.

This also raises the question of whether an emulator could be made to work on already decrypted media and let you figure out how to do that yourself. Nintendo could argue that its main use is still to play illegally decrypted ROMs but the emulator would have a decent defense imo.

Basically, all encryption multiplies some big prime numbers to get the key

No, not all encryption. First of all there’s two main categories of encryption:

• asymmetrical
• symmetrical

The most widely used algorithms of asymmetrical encryption rely on the prime factorization problem or similar problems that are weak to quantum computers. So these ones will break. Symmetrical encryption will not break. I’m not saying all this to be a pedant; it’s actually significant for the safety of our current communications. Well-designed schemes like TLS and the Signal protocol use a combination of both types because they have complementary strengths and weaknesses. In very broad strokes:

• asymmetrical encryption is used to initiate the communication because it can verify the identity of the other party
• an algorithm that is safe against eavesdropping is used to generate a key for symmetric encryption
• the symmetric key is used to encrypt the payload and it is thrown away after communication is over

This is crucial because it means that even if someone is storing your messages today to decrypt them in the future with a quantum computer they are unlikely to succeed if a sufficiently strong symmetric key is used. They will decrypt the initial messages of the handshake, see the messages used to negotiate the symmetric key, but they won’t be able to derive the key because as we said, it’s safe against eavesdropping.

So a lot of today’s encrypted messages are safe. But in the future a quantum computer will be able to get the private key for the asymmetric encryption and perform a MitM attack or straight-up impersonate another entity. So we have to migrate to post-quantum algorithms before we get to that point.

For storage, only symmetric algorithms are used generally I believe, so that’s already safe as is, assuming as always the choice of a strong algorithm and sufficiently long key.

No, the implied solution is to reevaluate the standard rather than hacking around it. The two humans should communicate that the standard works for neither side and design a better way to do things.

This is really funny to me. If you keep optimizing this process you’ll eventually completely remove the AI parts. Really shows how some of the pains AI claims to solve are self-inflicted. A good UI would have allowed the user to make this transaction in the same time it took to give the AI its initial instructions.

On this topic, here’s another common anti-pattern that I’m waiting for people to realize is insane and do something about it:

• person A needs to convey an idea/proposal
• they write a short but complete technical specification for it
• it doesn’t comply with some arbitrary standard/expectation so they tell an AI to expand the text
• the AI can’t add any real information, it just spreads the same information over more text
• person B receives the text and is annoyed at how verbose it is
• they tell an AI to summarize it
• they get something that basically aims to be the original text, but it’s been passed through an unreliable hallucinating energy-inefficient channel

Based on true stories.

The above is not to say that every AI use case is made up or that the demo in the video isn’t cool. It’s also not a problem exclusive to AI. This is a more general observation that people don’t question the sanity of interfaces enough, even when it costs them a lot of extra work to comply with it.

It’s much more complicated than this. Given that models have been shown to spit out verbatim copies of some training material, it can be argued that the weights do in fact encode the material, just in some obfuscated way. Additionally, it can be argued that the output of the model is a derivative copy of the original work regardless of whether the original work can be “found inside” the model weights, just by the nature of the process. As of now, there is no precedent that I know of on whether this constitutes redistribution of copyrighted material.

How many months should he have waited for an authoritative response?

Well, Marcan should wait as long as feels right to him. As I said previously, I’m pretty sure he was already pissed off about previous R4L issues and he didn’t quit because of this alone. I want to be clear that I’m commenting solely on the expectation of a swifter response from leadership in the original email thread and not on Marcan’s decision to step down, which I can’t be the judge of.

So, I expect people in places of power to take their time when they respond publicly to issues like this, for various reasons. Eg:

• they might try to resolve things in private first (seems to be the case)
• they might want to discuss with their peers to double check their decision making and to take collective action, this is especially true if the CoC committee gets involved
• they might want to chime in when people have calmed down and they expect to be able to have meaningful conversations with them

At the very least, I would have waited to see what happens with the patches if I were in his position. The review process, which kept going in the meantime, essentially sets a timer for a decision to be made. In the end, Hellwig’s objections would either be acknowledged as blocking or they would be ignored. In any case there would have been a clear stance from the project’s leadership. It makes sense to me to wait for this inevitable outcome before making a committal decision such as stepping down.

Cristoph Hellwig’s initial message was on 2025-01-08. Marcan’s stepping down was on 2025-02-07. So no, it’s not several months; it’s barely one month. Getting in fights in mailing lists and making social media posts is not everyone’s first reaction and it is arguably not the best reaction, especially for people in places of power. It is silly for Marcan to demand everybody’s reaction to be as loud and as quick as his own.

It was very clear that the reaction was going to be no reaction.

Well, it turns out that the reaction was pretty clear not “no reaction”. That’s the reason this thread we’re talking in exists. Marcan was objectively wrong if he assumed Hellwig’s comments and nack would be accepted. Instead, Hellwig was explicitly called out for having no say on the matter and for producing “garbage arguments”.

Marcan is not the submitter. Unless I’ve missed something, the submitter is still working on the patch.

Marcan was probably fed up and was looking for a reason leave. If that’s not the case, then it’s silly for him to just quit mid-discussion, before it’s even become apparent what the reaction to Cristoph Hellwig’s behavior would be and whether his reply would even be taken into account during the review process.

Arch doesn’t require you to “read through all changelogs”. It only requires that you check the news. News posts are rare, their text is short, and not all news posts are about you needing to do something to upgrade the system. Additionally, pacman wrappers like paru check the news automatically and print them to the terminal before upgrading the system. So it’s not like you have to even remember it and open a browser to do it.

Arch is entirely about “move fast and break stuff”.

No, it’s not. None of the things that make Arch hard for newbies have to do anything with the bleeding edge aspect of Arch. Arch does not assume your use case and will leave it up to you to do stuff like edit the default configuration and enable a service. In case of errors or potential breakage you get an error or a warning and you deal with it as you see fit. These design choices have nothing to do with “moving fast”. It’s all about simplicity and a diy approach to setting up a system.

Agreed. A few year back the devs looking for quick fixes would go over to StackOverflow and just copy answers without reading explanations. This caused the same type of problems that OP is talking about. That said, the ease of AI might be making things even worse.

Getting the entire world to switch to something better would be quite the undertaking.

But that’s probably not necessary. You could install something on your phone that does phone number lookup and then just dials the number as normal. The service doesn’t need to be built into the old phone networks this way.

The latter is I think aiming for Linux ABI compatibility.

I had never hard of Asterinas, but this sounds like a the best approach to me. I believe alternative OS’s need to act as (near) drop-in replacements if they want to be used as daily drivers. ABI-incompatible alternatives might be fine for narrower use cases, but most people wouldn’t even try out a desktop OS that doesn’t support most of the hardware and software they already use.

I’m not sure why they feel it’s Linus’ responsibility to make Rust happen in the kernel.

That’s not what’s being said here, as far as I can tell. Linus is not expected to somehow “make Rust happen”. But as a leader, he is expected to call out maintainers who block the R4L project and harass its members just because they feel like it. Christoph Hellwig’s behavior should not be allowed.

I’m not saying Marcan is necessarily correct, to be clear. It might well be that Linus chose to handle the issue in a quieter way. We can’t know whether Linus was planning on some kind of action that didn’t involve him jumping into the middle of the mailing list fight, eg contacting Christoph Hellwig privately. I’m merely pointing out that maybe you misunderstood what Marcan is saying.

Or fork it and make a Rust Linux with blackjack and hookers, and boy, will everyone left behind feel silly that they didn’t jump on the bandwagon.

That’s what they’re doing. But if you read the entire post carefully, he explains why maintaining a fork without eventually upstreaming it is problematic. And it’s not like they’re forcing their dream on the linux project, because the discussions have already been had and rust has officially been accepted into the kernel. So in the wider context, this is about individual maintainers causing friction against an agreed-upon project they don’t like.

As far as I know, the apps are not intercepting the text messages for passcodes. The messages have a specific format and a hash to indicate which app they are targeting. It is up to the messages app to read the message and to forward the code. This design should not need to give the apps any access to your messages.

EDIT: Basically the immunity system doesn’t work like a muscle.

I think the immune system can be likened to a muscle if someone really wants to go with that metaphor, but only if you consider vaccines to be the gym and getting sick is uncontrollable and dangerous physical exertion. So, wanting to develop natural immunity is like wanting to get into street fights to build arm strength. It might kinda work, but you’ll also be in a lot of unnecessary danger.

Your encryption key can be stored encrypted in the cloud. This isn’t a fundamentally bad thing, but they should allow better protection than the short pins they allowed last time I checked.

Do you have access to Signal servers to verify your claims by any chance?

That’s not how it works. The signal protocol is designed in a way that the server can’t have access to your message contents if the client encrypts them properly. You’re supposed to assume the server might be compromised at any time. The parts you actually need to verify for safe communication are:

• the code running on your device
• the public key of your intended recipient

Yeah, that section is bad.

For one, it’s has classic vibe “if you want to keep the nazis out, you’re the one who’s exclusionary”.

But also, how is refusing to engage on a platform “shutting out a significant portion of [the] community”? That sounds backwards to me. Blocking people from engaging with Debian on its own platforms would be shutting them out. The implication in the article is that Debian is obligated to be unconditionally present on every social platform its users might be on.

Vaxrys literally arguing that Hitler should be welcome in communities as long as pushes his goal of gassing of people outside the discord server, but “SJWs” are the real bigots ruining communities