no they didn’t, yes it could have happened:
gcc is not a dead project. it is continuously maintained. its improvements can be influenced by other projects like rust
I think they didn’t enshrine the right to end to end encryption, it’s just that they did not renew the temporary law allowing voluntary scanning for tech companies
yes, it was that the phone was saving notifications to a database, because the notification history feature was not disabled by the user. but that affects non-push notifications too, and it only becomes a problem when your phone is compromised (malware, including police malware)
but if you don’t trust your phone with not leaking your notifications, you shouldn’t trust it not leak what you typed in and what you watch on it either, because the operating system has access to all of these too. in that case you are looking for a better phone brand, maybe even a custom rom that’s known for privacy
they didn’t say otherwise
preferring Rust over Rust? what do you mean?
do you think loosely typed python is easy to read and maintain?
first result now in ddg
Edit: I figured out what was confusing me, the MEP just recently enshrined E2EE, which I remembered as a big win on the same level of no age verification.
oh that sounds interesting! could you throw a link?
one more thing: its not actually irrelevant for privacy whether lemmy sends our public comments across google’s push service. we are not anonymous, but we don’t use real names either so it’s partially private, but when google connects your notifications (or just the timestamp of them with comments here), they will be able to figure out what is your account. they can use that information for stalker marketing or give it to the authorities later on
ok. push notifications don’t universally leak your data. apps can receive either the message contents in the push notification, which is unsafe (less so if encrypted), or a ping that there is some kind of a new notification, upon which the app can connect to the server to fetch them. Popular messaging apps probably do the former for some reason. in mattermost its configurable by the server operator but defaults to leaking data. safe messaging apps don’t do this, they just send an empty notification or such, and the app checks in for updates. signal and matrix are like that, but in both cases they wouldn’t even be able to send the message when it is encrypted.
but back to voyager: to be able to use push notifications, the server needs to send them. Lemmy does not have the capability for that, probably not even in the 1.0 version they are working on. so the way for Voyager to fetch notifications is to check in periodically instead of using a push service.
not much better than eye scanning.
also does not solve the gifting problem, because normally you don’t know the ID of your friends
wait, I think maybe there is a misunderstanding in what happened in other apps. you are referring to the signal notifications thing, right?
oh, I thought OP’s point is Voyager does not even want you to bother with notifications that could make you more addicted
edit: someone else has taken it that way too: https://europe.pub/comment/7070900
do you remember what were they saying? they deleted everything
government id apps too in Europe
here too! christian values or something
or didn’t have a defense against a 0 day.
firewalls are not for defending against 0 days. it is about access control, and reducing, sometimes even minimizing access to potentially vulnerable services. firewalls are not an infallible security tool, but there is no such thing either. the reason to use it is to restrict access such that fewer attackers can take advantage of a potential vulnerability.
there are intrusion detection/prevention systems that could do more, but it’s unlikely they will protect against 0 days, because 0 days are undiscovered and unknown issues.
So the vlan doesn’t do anything either way.
it does. its useful to force traffic through a firewall. its for limiting what has access to what. if you wouldn’t use vlans, hosts on the network would not care about your firewall because they can just go straight to the destination.
I’m not sure I understand your argument, but I think what you say is, firewalls are not infallible so they are useless
they can do plenty enough to be worried. maybe they can not harm you physically (for now), but by having access to details of the private lives of people, their conversations, and being able to see how they form their opinions, they can use that information to determine how can they reshape public opinion on topics of their interests. this information can be used by themselves, or they can pass it to an ally, and it could be used to change almost anything, like interfere with elections, or further erode the need for privacy so that people are willingly giving up even more data to them
governments often buy data instead of obtaining the necessary warrants, because its easier and more effective. if they can’t buy it, they have to do it the harder way, and the harder way can be made even harder with legislation
Then I was not sure what you meant by this:
I don’t actually know if this is the right way to calculate it, but if for each disk you count the time separately, and add it together for a combined MTBF, then that is 20 out of the 136 MTBF years.
5 years of drive runtime for one drive. 20 “years” for 4 drives, 40 “years” for 8 drives. I say “years” because the way I mean it is like this: running 4 drives for 10 minutes is 40 minutes of combined drive runtime. running 4 drives for 5 years is 20 years of drive runtime. I think calculating it like this can be compared to MTBF. but again, I’m not totally confident that it really works this way.
All in all, I am at this point only trying to track down and relay what I’m seeing about SAS vs SATA.
I think it might be because SATA drives you normally run across, especially in laptops, are not the enterprise kind, but consumer drives built from cheaper components and simpler designs. and those are lower quality. while SAS drives are always enterprise grade.
but still, in my experience SATA drives can have a long life too. but it may be more unpredictable than enterprise SATA/SAS drives
HP says that SAS is more reliable
could be controller chips and cable quality. but also, SFF-8644 type SAS connector can be used to attach a drive to multiple HBA cards as I heard, maybe even multiple machines, for redundancy
what is your recommendation?