This is beautiful, incredibly sane, and awesome reference material. There's no way I'd use a 3500 lines init.el or most of the extras, but somehow I feel like a good chunk of the stuff here should be upstreamed if we one day consider it reasonable to change default behaviors in a major update.
And what happens when the next guy buys that same number and registers on Signal?
Phone numbers are recurring costs. And to keep a truly private one you must keep paying without ever disclosing personal info and that is really hard. Signal is a privacy nightmare for long term use.
There is a week long registration lock protected by a PIN. Your contact list is protected by that PIN as well. They cannot access your chats. All your contacts will get a notification that the contact has changed when they go to talk to your phone number or get a message from your number.
This is good and means no one can impersonate you using your phone number, but doesn't solve the recurring costs issue, you still need to buy a new number when someone registers yours, and every financial transaction puts you at more privacy risk. And is terrible UX, imagine having to add your contacts new numbers every other week.
People generally already have phone numbers. In the markets Signal is targeting its rare for people to not already have a phone number. It would be quite strange for someone to be paying for a phone number just to use Signal, and if you don't already have one then yes I'd suggest Signal isn't the choice for you.
Not only that, but its a unique identifier people generally have already had and generally have already shared and historically been OK with sharing with people they want to talk to. That's a part of the reason why Signal originally chose that way of finding contacts, people were already connected in that way. It makes on boarding people massively easier and greatly reduces the friction of people actually using it. A messaging platform is pretty useless if I can't easily find my friends on it.
> And is terrible UX, imagine having to add your contacts new numbers every other week
Practically nobody is getting a new phone number every other week. And once again, if you are the kind of person getting a new phone number every other week, I'd agree Signal probably isn't the platform for you.
If you don't have a phone number or your number changes all the time, I agree Signal isn't the choice for you. If you already have a phone number, are OK with what having a phone number means in terms of privacy, and that phone number is pretty stable, then Signal isn't a bad choice to use to message on.
It does mean theoretically some large organization (like a government with a warrant) can potentially see "John Doe has this phone number, this phone number is related to Signal, therefore John Doe possibly uses Signal", but personally I'm not too worried about that tiny bit of information leakage. Besides, with enough effort one could probably ID that looking at internet traffic patterns unless you're really that paranoid about controlling your network routing. Especially when that means I'm able to actually convince family to use the platform, as they're used to just looking up people by phone numbers and don't want to have to deal with managing yet another unique identifier on yet another platform. If they had to register another account and manage yet another identity, they wouldn't use it, and thus I'd be stuck just talking SMS with them which results in worse privacy outcomes for our conversations.
Getting and maintaining an active phone number privately is indeed quite hard, partially by governmental design.
Signal only requires occasional/rare proof of control of the registered phone number. It also has very little visible data the provider can access on your account, even if they had a reason to assist in breaking your privacy by look it up from the phone number. Without Signal foundation direct support, the phone number linkage to your Signal account is completely opt in by you only.
So in terms of privacy, Signal is actually very good about the phone number and leaves it mostly to you how public you want to be about it.
They're primarily using it as a finite controlled resource to limit how easy it is for people to spin up arbitrary new accounts. Other projects might use some cryptocurrency junk that effectively equates to paying for accounts, but Signal uses what you probably already have.
Good idea! I haven't and won't. Now read me the original text of Anselm's ontological argument and explain it in modern English without falling back to ancient philosophical gibberish like "substance" and "potentiality".
Not really. Most people have terribly low time preference. Democracy for example is a very bad idea when you account for that (read Hoppe for a detailed explanation). Public company ownership is much better because it doesn't suffer from one vote per person, but still susceptible to much of the same management problems, specially in a society that already favors lower time preference by other means.
I do not deeply disagree with your statement but I do not see the two as exclusive.
I think distributed public ownership placed in a corporation ruled as proposed here provides a chance to harvest residual good decisions from a citizen/shareholder who cares as opposed to having a single decision derived from some other issue a majority of citizens favor.
Unless you're talking about doing away with any kind of voting but Communism doesn't exactly have a stellar track record.
fwiw, Hoppe has become a darling of the extremist authoritarian "alt-right" (curtis yarvin, etc) but has been rejected by more mainstrean thinkers including most libertarian factions.
Disservice? Rust is taking over the world while they still have nothing to show basically (Servo, the project Rust was created for, is behind ladybird of all things). Every clueless developer and their dog thinks Rust is like super safe and great, with very little empirical evidence still after 19 years of the language's existence.
Zig people want Zig to "win". They are appearing on Hacker News almost every day now, and for that purpose this kind of things matters more than the language's merits themselves. I believe the language has a good share of merits though, far more than Rust, but it's too early and not battle tested to get so much attention.
FWIW, all of those links compare Rust to languages created before 1980, and are all projects largely and unusually independent of the crates ecosystem and where dynamic linking does not matter. If you're going to use a modern language anyway, you should do due diligence and compare it with something like Swift as the ladybird team is doing right now, or even a research language like Koka. There is a huge lack of evidence for Rust vs other modern languages and we should investigate that before we lock ourselves into yet another language that eventually becomes widely believed to suck.
Microsoft isn't going to abandon C#, it's just using the right tool for the right job. While there are certainly cases where it is justified to go lower level and closer to the metal, writing everything in Rust would be just as dumb as writing everything in C# or god forbid, JS.
Author is definitely correct in pointing out the incentives for companies to buy hardware. What the article misses is that there is in fact a reasonable economic incentive to not invest in software even if LLMs were not an economic bubble. It is that every single company is developing the same thing, there are many of those who even develop them as open source, and the ones that are closed as well as any company who would hire this guy, have a bunch of industrial spies inside anyway. Buying hardware may increase your moat, but developing software just rises the sea level.
Definitely not it's purpose. Avy can be used to select a word, line, or region. One action is move to it. But it can also, in it's own words, copy, yank, zap to, transpose, teleport, kill, mark, ispell, org-refile, and custom actions.
I've bounced off that blog post in the past, because it makes it appear the first step to doing something in avy is to position all my files and "windows" (a "window" is an editing pane inside Emacs) in some clever way, and after I got all that setup, and the windows are all looking at just the right parts of the files, then I can move a paragraph from one window to another with just a few special keystrokes.
I feel like moving from a large monitor to a small monitor would limit the usefulness of avy; it's weird that the physical size of a monitor would limit a tool like this.
If I can only see 3 lines of text at a time (maybe an accessibility thing), the usefulness of Vim-bindings is not significantly reduced. Is the same true for avy?
Again, I'm willing to learn that I was wrong, but this is the specific issue that ended my enthusiasm for learning avy.
It's more about allowing a-library-fits-all than forcing it. You don't have to ask for io, you just should, if you are writing a library. You can even do it the Rust way and write different libraries for example for users who want or don't want async if you really want to.
reply