China. The people are super nice, sweet, helpful, lovely people. It’s just their government I hate. I don’t know if they hate it too or not since they’re not free to say but I think they’re nice people and they deserve better.

My favourite thing about NCD Lemmy is that the rule on nuclear schizoposting did not make the transition. I miss me some good oldfashioned nuclear schizoposting, if people want to do the funni, I am fully here for it

There is always going to be some level of interpretation. You are looking for an absolute truth that, while it may theoretically exist, cannot be reliably perceived through a human lens, which you are guaranteed to have at least 1 of (yourself), and almost certainly 2 (the source), and maybe many, many, many more in between.

Imagine you had a time machine that could bring you back into whatever time you’re interested so you can watch it unfold first-hand. Ok, great. But do you trust your eyes? Did you see everything that happened? Even if you can invisibly go and explore the aftermath. Even if you can go back to the same point 100 times, 1000 times, and meticulously detail everything you find. Do you now have the perfect and unambiguous truth? Of course not. You can make mistakes, you can misunderstand. Even our eyes lie to us. Even our brain misremembers things. Different people using the same time machine to travel to the exact same point in time may see what happens in an entirely different way, may see things that you did not see. Who’s right?

I know you think you’re looking for the absolute unvarnished truth, but you are chasing a phantom. Your goal is not realistic. At some point you have to arbitrarily accept and define what errors and limitations the sources you’re drawing your understanding from might have, and attempt to make your own interpretation of what the facts actually are. You will never know what really happened with absolute certainty. Absolute certainty is its own kind of myth and there’s some very fundamental metaphysical reasons for that. You’re not going to find a magic textbook of trustworthy history that solves that problem.

Understanding history is a process that requires connecting many different pieces of variously flawed contexts and information to paint your own, interpreted but hopefully relatively accurate picture. No matter what book you read, you cannot guarantee its accuracy and it is a fool’s errand to try, but you can continue to try to collect more evidence, more pieces of context, more clues to add more details to your picture. Perhaps you will never be satisfied with the detail of the picture you’ve created, sometimes you will have to throw your whole picture away and start to create a new and different picture on the basis of some details you find that don’t fit. You’re never going to have a perfect picture, but I think a lot of people have managed to create really pretty good ones based on a whole lot of research of many different sources and pieces of detail, not just written records alone but cultural references, archaeological artifacts, scientific analysis, and sometimes just assumptions about basic human behavior. You just have to learn who and what you can trust and how far you can trust them. Both as sources, and as interpreters. And you are always welcome to argue you own interpretation.

Basic rules: Have a strong password. Don’t reuse that password on other sites because it’s more likely one of those sites will get hacked then all your accounts with the same password will get hacked. For sites that support it, enable 2FA/MFA codes or email verification. Keep your email accounts and cell phone number/identity locked down like Fort Knox, since email and phones can be used to password reset just about anything you have, usually with little difficulty.

That said, if the accounts had no activity for 2 years, they were probably created intentionally for the purpose of spamming/selling. They may have been saving them to see if the value goes up. They might have just recently been sold to a spammer and activated in their spambots.

If you yourself use/are familiar with Linux and willing to actually test and polish your Linux version to the same standard as your Windows version, then a native Linux version is always appreciated.

However these days, it’s probably not necessary and a lazy afterthought Linux version is like a bad console port, and because we DO have the option to run the Windows version, it’s probably worse than no Linux version at all.

So it really depends on your personal feelings towards Linux, and nobody’s going to judge you for not providing a native version you can’t personally test and support. That’s why we have Proton.

Given the current state of the world, it’s easiest to just assume that literally anything anyone is saying about anything DEI related is probably just pure fucking falsehoods, like everything else spewing out of MAGA.

Even in the unlikely event you do accidentally dismiss one slight half-truth in the mountain of lies, you can rest assured that it probably wasn’t as meaningful or widespread as they are trying to make it seem.

You are being lied to. The lies are repeated and relentless to batter you until you accept them. They’re still lies though.

Not sure if the word itself is some conjugation that makes it a real word, but it’s probably connected to or inspired by or meant to invoke the Ancient Greek apotheos (literally apo=from, theos=god) found in its most common derivation today into apotheosis. Hope that helps.

It’s not only obvious, it’s already done worldwide. Deep packet inspection evolved into HTTPS inspection and corporate/enterprise firewalls can detect and hijack attempts to establish encrypted connections already, as a “feature”. So do government firewalls in totalitarian countries. Of course they (probably) can’t do this secretly and transparently, because of the man-in-the-middle protections built into SSL, so they simply make the actual encrypted connection themselves on the client’s behalf, and give the client a different encrypted connection signed by their own certificate authority, which they force you to accept.

In this situation, you have two choices: You accept the certificate, and you accept that the owner of the intermediate certificate will be inspecting your “encrypted” connection. If you don’t accept the certificate, then your connection is blocked and you have to find some other way to encrypt and hide your traffic without it being intercepted, because it won’t let you go direct end-to-end. Usually, at the moment, this is not that hard for the tech-savvy to avoid, it doesn’t even require something as secretive as steganography, it’s usually simply a matter of tunneling through a different protocol or port. Although those approaches are still obvious, and can easily be detected and either blocked in real-time or flagged for investigation after-the-fact if they have any interest in doing something about it. Corporations or countries that want to lock down their networks further can simply block any ports or protocols that would allow such tunneling or inspection-evasion in the first place.

Deep packet inspection already allows any non-encrypted traffic to be clearly identified. If you don’t want any encrypted traffic to sneak through, you can safely assume anything that can’t be clearly identified is encrypted and block it. Depending on how strict you want to be about it, you start essentially whitelisting the internet to known, plaintext protocols. If it’s not known and plaintext, just block it. Problem solved. Encryption gone, until people start building (possibly hidden) encryption on top of those plaintext protocols, which is inevitable, and then you update your deep packet inspection to detect the encrypted fields inside the plaintext protocol and block them, and the back-and-forth battle continues.

Encryption is probably a false panacea against a major state-level adversary anyway, especially if they have plausible access to network infrastructure, but that’s a whole different can of worms and unless you’re a serious revolutionary/terrorist probably beyond the useful scope of most people’s realistic concerns.

You can download a torrent client and start pirating because it’s encrypted. Nobody knows you’re doing that besides the people you’re directly connected to on the other end. If they wanted to crack down on it, the first thing they need to do is crack down on encryption. If they can see exactly what you’re doing, it’s now possible to easily catch you, with encryption it isn’t.

Note that this also applies to encryption itself. Once it’s banned, it gets much more difficult to hide the fact that you’re encrypting something. Encrypted data itself has to go into hiding. You have to resort to something like some pretty hardcore steganography which means you need to hide secret encrypted messages in normal-seeming non-encrypted traffic. The problem is that to do this you need to have a sufficient quantity of non-encrypted traffic to hide your secret encryption in without it starting to look suspicious, either due to the unusually massive volume of meaningless “normal” traffic needed to subtly encode the hidden data, or the fact that large amounts of hidden data in small amounts of “normal” data become increasingly obvious as the large number of supposedly “normal” mistakes and errors and artifacts that form the encoded data will suggest some of those variations are not in fact “normal” at all and will indicate that encrypted data is being concealed.

Governments banning encryption will of course never stop everybody. But it makes it much harder for the people still using encryption anyway and much easier for the people who want to see what they’re doing or at least see who they are. It’s classic “black or white” thinking to assume that because it hasn’t simply stopped encryption it hasn’t worked. This would be a big step that makes things much harder, and even taking small steps to make things slightly harder is an extremely effective tool and it’s become extremely common to try to convince people that these small regressions and erosions are inconsequential and normal even when they are in fact targeted, repeated, relentless and consistently add up to dramatic change over time. The only saving grace we have is that at least some people are simultaneously making the same kind of targeted, repeated, relentless changes for the common good and those can have just as drastic an effect.

The internet cannot download more RAM into your PC. (Sssh! Don’t tell them! I don’t want the supply to run out!)

Yeah it’s like the guy in Wyoming who passed an anti-trans law saying that it’s not required to use preferred pronouns to refer to somebody and then getting all upset when he was called “madam” and whining that his preferred pronoun is “chairman”. That leopard eating your face must hurt.

Even if there were some woman as hellbent on destroying civilization as these guys, then she’s a techbro. And if she gets mad about being called techbro because she’s a woman? Well, how sad for her. “My heart goes out to you”

We’re not trying to make them happy. Fuck them, fuck them all. If it makes them mad to be called a “bro” good, that’s a bonus.

Of course. They will pump and dump that too, over and over again, with your tax dollars in the “reserve” taking the hit each time while they embezzle what will probably eventually be trillions, just wait, they will not stop looting America until there is nothing left to loot.

I absolutely would not count on a snapped in half MicroSD to protect the data that’s on it from someone determined to find out what it was. You don’t even know if you actually managed to break the memory chips themselves or just the connections between them, which with time and patience and the right equipment could be reconnected, and even if the chips are broken a great deal of the data on them will still remain intact, etched in silicon for eternity and vulnerable not only to current technology but also future technology.

Your goal is turning the data stored on your MicroSD card into a puzzle. A 2 piece puzzle is likely quite solvable even today. To properly vaporize the card and make it actually unreadable you’d likely need to do some experimentation and try things you would potentially have access to in war like fire, gunfire, explosives or corrosive chemicals, some combinations of which may serve to well and truly annihilate any hint of structure. The question is how many tiny pieces can you break that MicroSD card into, if that number is a human-countable or even human-comprehensible number like the number of pieces a document typically gets shredded into, then it’s probably not safe enough to consider it reliably destroyed.

If people can tape back together shredded documents to get the basic idea of what was written on them, someone can likewise theoretically repair your MicroSD to get a large proportion of the stored data from it if they are absolutely intent on doing so. It’s probably a lot of work, and maybe not even a not-worth-it amount of work depending on how important your data might be, and there might be a substantial amount of data unrecoverable and missing, but it can be done. Unless you make it a puzzle with so many pieces that doing so is mathematically implausible and just as likely to be an incorrect reconstruction of data that might say anything the reconstructor imagines it does, without actually giving them any confidence that it is real and correct. The only thing that’s certain is that 2 is probably not a good enough number of pieces to rely on for that to be the case.

As an alternative to the fire/gunfire/explosives/acid style methods, you might also use sandpaper (would take awhile), or better yet a grinder tool of some sort (dremel, angle grinder, bench grinder) to give yourself some confidence that the card has truly been turned to a pile of arbitrary dust. Even then, I’d still concerns as the data density increases, a single speck of MicroSD dust from a 1TB card shredded into millions of pieces might still contain 1 MB of data – that’s an awful lot of text and even potentially some images if it can be decoded. They really prove surprisingly hard to destroy. Electrical attacks, even Microwave ovens, reportedly have mixed results and don’t sound like reliable approaches either.

If you can get it to a molten state, that’s your highest confidence method. Silicon has a melting point of 1,414 °C, good luck.

Let’s just restrict them from everyone