I don't remember Tim Peters much except the foundational things he has done for Python and that time when the Python Committee were completely disrespectful to him and banned him in the forum. Made sure that I would never donate to the Python foundation ever.
Claude told me that Anthropic disallows Pi for use with Claude Pro / Max subscription and you have to use API. Is OP then switching to API and credits?
I have not used them but supposedly you now get API credits with subscriptions now. (I don't know if it's changed but in the past when they've given API promotions it required enabling billing for API and I don't dare risk some bug on their end billing me a billion bucks)
This is an incredibly overconfident statement, given that no one can definitively prove WhatsApp or production consumer builds of Signal actually encrypt anything (note: this is unrelated to Signal builds compiled by users themselves).
After a long back and forth with the peanut gallery I got bored and thus chucked claude at the task to show that you're completely wrong on the point of Signal builds.
My mortgage was with a bank that had a website but no app and I was happy, and then they merged with another bank and only had an app and no website and I was not at all happy (but the bank they merged with also had their own mortgage product with both app and website and I do not know why they didn't migrate to using that platform). I swiftly moved to a bank that incidentally had a lower interest and both a competent app and website, and I noted to the previous merged bank that the reason I was leaving is that they did not accommodate me. Whether that feedback was heard, I'm unsure.
Not an option if all banks follow suit. If this trend continues you would only switch to a bank who hasn't yet locked down their app yet.
Hopping banks is easy for just savings, but a lot of work and inconvenience for your standard payment accounts, and that's ignoring additional services like mortgages and insurance.
Indeed. It also fights symptoms rather than the underlying issue - that Google Play Integrity is an anti-competitive method that Google uses to shut out competition. The fact that Google-certified phones that are months behind on critical security updates (or even have malware in there updates as a recent case) do get a pass, shows that it is not really about security, but about destroying competition in the smartphone ecosystem as early as possible.
The solution is not voting with your wallet, but either leveraging the DMA or drafting new laws that counter this.
Either Google should be forced to approve secure alternatives like GrapheneOS or companies should be required to also implement AOSP attestation. Or alternatively, remote attestation should be banned completely, but I can understand the argument that it serves some legitimate uses.
I filed a complaint at ACM (Dutch authority consumer market) about this a while ago since you need to be a google partner to be approved and that is anti competitive. They were very interested in this and even asked for a follow-up. I think they have an open issue about this. So it is a good idea to contact your national authority.
I love how people think "vote with your wallet" is an option on most "vote with your wallet" issues. If people could vote with their wallets they wouldn't have to, would they?
Vote with your vote for politicians for common sense regulations that favor the consumer at the expense of everything else.
This is how it should work, but not how it does. Dutch banks don't pass down increases in interest rates simply because the risk of losing customers is so low [1]. Dutch consumers don't want, can't be bothered, or have such loyalty to their bank of choice, that even a criminally-low rate won't convince them to switch bank
Dutch consumers don't want, can't be bothered, or have such loyalty to their bank of choice, that even a criminally-low rate won't convince them to switch bank
It is also just very hard in practice. A lot of people have their mortgages, savings that are locked for years, etc. at a bank. Also, switching a bank also impacts other family members if you have shared accounts, etc.
In this particular case it's also not fully clear yet whether Wero is starting to enforce this. If that happens to be the case, it's only a matter of time before other banks also start requiring Play Integrity for Wero transactions.
It's not hard to just move your savings. A lot of people do that actually; just keep the standard banking account for daily payments and all other services, and put savings in bank-managed ETFs, time deposits, or savings accounts with other banks (I do all three).
It's not hard to move your savings but due to some "coincidence" all Dutch banks keep their interest rates within a very narrow band (some advertise with higher interest rates you get for 6 months).
Dutch people are very averse to banks outside of the country due to the icesave affair and not trusting that for example Estonia or Italy will actually be able to make them whole in case of a crisis. So in the end are you moving your money from Rabobank to Andolubank (whoever they are) for 0.3% more interest? Probably not.
Savings rates on all savings accounts are useless. Rabobank even has a managed passive investment account that functionally works like a savings account if you really don't want to use funds yourself [0], I think ING does too. If you do use funds or invest otherwise it doesn't matter which bank you use.
Reminds me of the tweet i saw:
"My bank, who passed all 14 interest rate increases on to my mortgage, and none of them on to my savings account interest, is currently sending me tips on how to spot financial scammers"
This is an incredibly overconfident statement, given that no one can definitively prove WhatsApp or production consumer builds of Signal actually encrypt anything (note: this is unrelated to Signal builds compiled by users themselves).
With the massive improvements to AI, it'd be pretty trivial to decompile Signal and compare against the source, or have it reverse engineer WhatsApp to see if there's some kind of backdoor.
Give me a compelling reason why I should care? The Signal Foundation hasn't done anything to undermine its trust. They already do reproducible builds on Android, so why would they backdoor the iOS app.
If it bothers you, why don't you do it and show that it can or cannot be done, or that it isn't as trivial as I say showing the assertion false. Feel free to accept this nerd snipe.
Otherwise, continue to sook because you didn't get what you want.
I don’t know what you’re talking about so feel free to make your point and state how it contradicts the signal page on reproducible builds for Android. Even if there is such a thing, it doesn’t make the analysis impossible (particularly proving whether thr build encrypts anything) like the OP claims and AI can make it easy to get through the gaps. But again you’ll need to make a compelling case why I or anyone should care?
I see some mentioned issue at the bottom of the original issue, but looks irrelevant.
Are you now motivated to do your super trivial AI task?
I repeatedly ask for you to provide a compelling reason to care and you haven't made the case. You want to quibble over things that nobody cares about. So until you have a compelling case, you will have to figure out yourself the answers for which you seek. Alternatively, if you would like to pay me to test my assertion (this will significantly increase my carefactor), I am happy to make arrangements (I don't do bets, there has to always be something in it for me first).
Do you ever admit being wrong?
Before I can concede being wrong, I would have to know what it is that I am being wrong about.
Speaking of being wrong, do you still want to maintain that Signal does not have reproducible builds of Android, because your forum link didn't really help your case, and there's nothing present contradicting that Signal reproducible builds are actually not reproducible.
That it's not trivial at all to do what you claim :) But you won't try it to avoid finding out that gasp! you were just hallucinating!
Why would I concede I am wrong on this point. What have you proven or disproven about the claim? Why does me not wanting to bother with something I do not care about (because it is a fruitless endeavour) have any bearing on the claim? You know, if it matters to you so much, rather than have a sook, you could actually try to prove or disprove the claim; as I said earlier, feel free to accept the nerd snipe, you seem vested in this.
Well I woke up at 2am to pee and couldn't get back to sleep and was bored, so I figured I'd give it a shot now to satisfy my own curiosity even though my mind was made up that this wouldn't reveal anything nefarious, and I would only have done this on my own terms.
The assertion is true, AI was able to do this like a knife through butter.
Took 1 prompt, and one follow up, pressing enter once or twice, a few macos brew commands, and a few non relevant prompts asking for status of background jobs, and 2 hours later and $9.22 in tokens (but about 20% of my session use) and it had confirmed that the disassembled app store ipa corresponds to the source code exactly for the compiled binaries. Pretty similar outcome to the Android reproducible build verification.
It's a bother because tokens cost money and you haven't sufficiently motivated me to care. I have better things to do with my AI subscription. If you want to give me money for my time and tokens, then I will give it some consideration. I don't do things when there's nothing in it for me.
Been using fastmail since 2013 and before that hosting my own for about 15 years. I feel fastmail does a lot of things right, for example one near and dear to my heart is proper alias handling in the webmail interface. I think my only complaint is that they rolled out IMAP compatible 'notes/memo' for emails, but you can't use it unless you use the grouped conversation thingy which I don't like.
Also I get the vibe that the company treats their employees properly and not like disposable trash.
reply