Wireguard is most reliable in terms of security. For censorship resistance, it’s all about tunneling it in a way that looks indistinguishable from normal traffic

Domain or IP doesn’t make much of a difference. If somebody can block one they can block the other. The trick is not getting flagged. Domain does make it easier to administer though with stuff like dyndns, but then you also need to make sure eSNI is available (especially if it’s on hosting) and that you’re using encrypted DNS lookups

Telegram has been under fire from the start, lol. 'we have math PhDs" 🤷

There’s also a big difference between published specifications and threat models for the encryption which professionals can investigate in the code delivered to users, versus no published security information at all with pure reverse engineering as the only option

Apple at least has public specifications. Experts can dig into it and compare against the specs, which is far easier than digging into that kind of code blindly. The spec describes what it does when and why, so you don’t have to figure that out through reverse engineering, instead you can focus on looking for discrepancies

Proper open source with deterministic builds would be even better, but we aren’t getting that out of Apple. Specs is the next best thing.

BTW, plugging our cryptography community: !crypto@infosec.pub

I did pay attention, and I saw noone serious think that would be legal to do

The biggest errors was not pushing harder against his first campaign, not pushing harder during the impeachments, letting Jan 6 go without another impeachment, and not calling out the billionaires helping his campaign with the intent to dismantle agencies that protect people, etc.

The SCOTUS appointments were big issues but due to the timing meaning they happened when dems lacked majorities there wasn’t much to do about them. Getting Trump out of the office is the only fix.

Only exception would’ve been SCOTUS reform immediately after Biden’s election when he had a majority, but the problem there is he couldn’t get enough votes for it

How were they supposed to override the “turtle” though? Sure they should’ve fought harder, but what legal options were there?

Looks like the same dev from reddit

https://www.reddit.com/r/crypto/comments/1iumxl3/how_far_can_i_push_closesource_code_towards_being/

You’re missing important factors like Trump getting help from SCOTUS and agency heads bowing down to him. Biden would never have been allowed to do a fraction of this because none of it would’ve reached the enforcement stage

Ah yes, the classical “only their actions matters” response that all racists use

Don’t worry, they’re still abusing minorities in their own territory

… But not for Uyghurs

Yup, don’t be sole owner if you can’t afford a lawyer to make sure you get a good deal

And you can have a union even in a co-op (would mostly help if the majority / appointed leaders make decisions that break some rules, think enforcing safety rules and such)

You could also Steve Jobs yourself with a treatable but deadly disease

Your workaround is precisely why I said “more practical”. Any updates to your tooling might break it because it’s not an expected usecase

You don’t want FIDO2 security tokens for that, use an OpenPGP applet (works with some Yubikeys and with many programmable smartcards). Much more practical for authenticating a server.

BTW we have a lot of cryptography experts in www.reddit.com/r/crypto (yes I know, I’m trying to get the community moved, I’ve been moderating it for a decade and it’s a slow process)

The Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem isn’t subjective, it’s physics.

Your example isn’t great because it’s about misconceptions about the eye, not about physical limits. The physical limits for transparency are real and absolute, not subjective. The eye can perceive quick flashes of objects that takes less than a thousandth of a second. The reason we rarely go above 120 Hz for monitors (other than cost) is because differences in continous movement barely can be perceived so it’s rarely worth it.

We know where the upper limits for perception are. The difference typically lies in the encoder / decoder or physical setup, not the information a good codec is able to embedd with that bitrate.

Newer fractional arithmetic encoding can get crazy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_numeral_systems

Why use lossless for that when transparent lossy compression already does that with so much less bandwidth?

Opus is indistinguishable from lossless at 192 Kbps. Lossless needs roughly 800 - 1400 Kbps. That’s a savings of between 4x - 7x with the exact same quality.

Your wireless antenna often draws more energy in proportion to bandwidth use than the decoder chip does, so using high quality lossy even gives you better battery life, on top of also being more tolerant to radio noise (easier to add error correction) and having better latency (less time needed to send each audio packet). And you can even get better range with equivalent radio chips due to needing less bandwidth!

You only need lossless for editing or as a source for transcoding, there’s no need for it when just listening to media

SMTP?

Except Opus. Beats it at most bitrates