In the case of email, security is more important than privacy. The country your provider is based in doesn’t matter.

Hypothetically if we were talking about something like a VPN, it would need to be a country which values privacy and which has a vaguely hostile attitude to America. I have no idea what country that would be.

The stereotype of pedophiles in cop shows is that they use desktop computers anyway, not phones. Don’t know how true to reality that is though.

I think both approaches are too extreme. Supporting every device leads to poor security, poor stability, and therefore a poor user experience, but only supporting just Google devices (while there is a good reason for that) is a step too far for most people.

If I were in the position of e/os I’d just support probably three manufacturers. Going through the major ones that I know of: Motorola and Google are obvious picks. Next would need to be something cheap and popular. Samsung is way out of the question. Xiaomi and Vivo I’ve never seen their phones mentioned outside of China (which is a country that generally doesn’t have the same privacy considerations as people in the west do). That leaves Oneplus and Tecno Mobile for the third model.

They’re two sides of the same coin. Can’t have privacy without security and can’t have security without privacy.

Looking at the post though he’s specifically talking about advanced security as a means of preserving privacy, security you’d need if (based on his model) targeted by a government (whether foreign or your local police forensics team). I don’t think his model is correct though because while extra hardened security is useful to protect privacy in such an instance, it’s also just best practice because it’s better to have too much security than not enough, just to keep your bank account secure at least.

The fact is we need cameras. I know being in favour of any form of law enforcement is heresy here but there are murderers who were arrested only because of CCTV. The question is not “cameras or no cameras” because cameras will win for the average person 9 times out of 10 (to the extent that Ring doorbell cameras sell like hotcakes), the question is whether the cameras are internet connected.

I find iPhones themselves dystopian.

I tried to think of an exception, but no dice.

Hypothetically though, if Canada invaded and annexed the United States then gave them free universal healthcare, that would probably be completely justifie. Basically any action against the US government is acceptable if I think about it.

CCTV isn’t a problem. It’s mass surveillance that’s the problem. As the saying goes, “show me the man and I’ll show you the crime”. With enough information the state can always find something to turn their political enemy into a criminal. The government should not be able to do that with a mere flick of the wrist.

If anything a higher number of CCTV’s is a good thing, assuming the number of all types of camera combined remains constant between cities.

I think part of the problem is that Linux basically supports every use case. Sometimes the scope needs to reduce, older hardware needs to be abandoned, etc.

The article cites some hardware being incompatible with Rust as part of the issue, but perhaps what needs to change is that a line in the sand needs to be drawn over which hardware is accepted. The legacy hardware can be left to the forks developed by paid employees for their businesses own personal use.

Linux doesn’t need to become as hardline on hardware as Windows 11, but the distros where the maintainers are at risk of burnout can certainly afford to abandon at least some hardware. Apparently Rust doesn’t support alpha (1992-2007), hppa (1986-2008), ia64 (2001-2019), m68k (1979-1994), or s390 (1990-2004). All of these are at least 18 years old, with the exception of ia64, but apparently the Linux kernel already dropped support in 2024.

To combat global AI memory shortage

More likely, to combat Cxmt.

Not specifically putting bots on Reddit though, based on the headline of that article.

I see the rationale, dead internet theory and all. The problem is that if this happened, I 100% believe Reddit would form a partnership with the US government or oil companies to put bots on their platform and spread misinformation.

Who in your group didn’t know what charol tablets were and looked them up?

Various criticisms of the browsers you listed:

• Trivalent and Brave have a chromium base, forgivable but putting aside the chromium monopoly there are various issues with that base. It doesn’t let you easily create duplicate bookmarks, has no equivalent of about:config, and pretend I thought of a third thing because just listing two is weird.
• Brave has a built-in AI chatbot that you can’t remove AFAIK.
• Mullvad … probably better to use Noscript and Ublock Origin on Firefox ESR. It’ll get faster security updates that way.

A browser fork is generally less secure, because they’re slower to get security updates. Firefox gives you the option to remove all the AI and that’s a better approach.

Alternatively you could switch to Firefox ESR, which is basically just better in every way.

Is this AI generated?

It has an m-dash and uses the phrase “hard facts”.

Security is very important.

And the only price, you’ll need to see the Google logo flash brightly every time you reboot.

Way better than Mozilla.

A CEO should be paid enough to live comfortably if you work at a non-profit, but if you need to be paid market rate then you’re probably not passionate about the position. When your job is fulfilling a public good rather than delivering shareholder value, that and a decently generous salary should be reward enough.

That said, I think Signal is better than Mozilla on this front, because they don’t have a long history of terrible decisions each of which coming with increased executive compensation.

EDIT: Also the CEO of Mozilla made 6-7 million per year (haven’t checked the new CEO though). Way more than Meredith Whittaker’s $750,000. So honestly Signal is an order of magnitude better on this front.