I wonder if it could be linked to the original development on the Sega Saturn, if I remember well the video of the prototype, Shenmue on Saturn was spanning across both Shenmue 1 and 2
> Is interfering in bangladeshi elections “soft power?”
Don't act like then entire purpose of USAID and the entire definition of soft power is whatever 0.08% of one year's budget you've been told to hate today. Distributing HIV medication is soft power. Sending food aid is soft power (and good farm policy). Supporting democratic elections is soft power. If it's unarmed and promoting American interests and values it's soft power.
> Don't act like then entire purpose of USAID and the entire definition of soft power is whatever 0.08% of one year's budget you've been told to hate today.... Supporting democratic elections is soft power.
Don't talk down to me--I grew up around USAID and almost certainly know more about it than you. Nearly all our family friends are USAID or World Bank people. Virtually all of the people talking about USAID didn't know shit about it until it became another vector to play out their impotent rage at Trump.
Interfering in other countries' politics undermines American soft power and the mission of USAID. All the things you and I both like--vaccinations for kids, maternal health, etc.--require working with governments to executive effectively.
Interfering with domestic political affairs completely negates that. Governments will not trust a putative AID organization that is also bankrolling activist organizations in their countries. And approximately zero people in Asia/Africa/the Middle East have uniformly negative feelings about the U.S. meddling in their internal politics.
Fair, I was a bit ungenerous. So you believe - what? USAID shouldn’t engage in politics, and agree enough with a recent viral tweet to use it as your example, and to insinuate that anyone talking about USAID is just acting out their TDS. But also that USAID _should_ be doing the humanitarian work that comprised the overwhelming majority of its efforts and is quite literally being decimated. And that no benefit should accrue to the US? Or none in the form of a more aligned government or political system than history has allowed to take root?
You didn’t “debunk” anything. You have no understanding of the history of State Department involvement in that region over decades, and are just reflexively assuming Elon is lying.
Show me proof of their claims that entire $29 million grant went to to that agency was spent on work in Bangledashi elections as Musk/DOGE claimed, despite no federal contract indicating that.
Show me the proof that DOGE "saved" that money after the contract was almost done and money was almost entirely granted.
Show me the proof that it went to an agency of two people as Trump claimed.
You can't show me proof of any of those things because they are lying.
You either ignorantly or willfully continue to repeat that lie, likely for partisan reasons.
There is no legitimate reason for the U.S. to be supporting political organizations of any sort in another country, bypassing official government channels.
It’s not a partisan point at all. My family came to America from Bangladesh because of USAID. I have every reason to hope the money was really going for childhood nutrition or vaccines or a legitimate expenditure like that.
This is not an isolated move though. People he associates with (afd, farrage, meloni) revolve around nazism and fascism. Trump language as well is (mass deportation, invasion, attacks on the justice system, etc...).
This is just part of his political strategy.
My interpretation is that he sees any opinion that goes against his personal interests as a personal attacks and something he has to shut down to conduct his businesses which naturally leads towards this behaviour and the far right spheres.
I don't think this is a weird response to something that happened on twitter, this is just who he is.
Isn't any app that can access read the x11 socket able to read any input? It's not just running an explicitly malicious app but also the risk of compromising an app which can read the x11 socket (e.g. Firefox)
It's also why there existed more advanced security extensions for X11 (like security labels for windows), but also why even bare-bones X11 had methods to ensure that only one specific application was getting input, specifically to handle secure input like with passwords.
Yes, exactly. I'm just saying that the response to a remote browser exploit in firefox is more likely to be "YIKES ZERO DAY IN FIREFOX!!!!!" and not "well it's a good thing we're running it in windows so it can't screenshot other apps or inject key events".
It's not like it's not a valid argument, just that it's sort of a nitpick. Security is hard, and defense in depth is a thing, but this particular attack surface is way, way back in the "depth" stack for a modern app deployment.
Javascript has managed to even ruin the linux desktop. Running every random JS application sent to your browser VM makes the browser insecure which means the entire computer can't be trusted. This is the reason things like the waylands enforce a smartphone like model of security where the user's applications aren't allowed to communicate or interact with other elements of the graphical desktop. Applications aren't trusted. So the user isn't trusted. A trade-off not worth it.
Huh? What are you trying to say? There's no conflict between distrusting applications and trusting the user. Even on Android (which is pretty paranoid these days), you, the user, can still opt to trust apps with things like accessibility API access and background location.
Why exactly should we perpetuate the insecure old single-privilege-level desktop model?
>Why exactly should we perpetuate the insecure old single-privilege-level desktop model?
Because after 10 years of heavy development none of the waylands have managed support simple things like screen readers. X11 supports screen readers and innumberable other vital accessibility features that wayland never will be able to. Some waylands might eventually develop extensions for their particular desktop but there won't ever be a way for wayland protocol because it can't. Security theater is more important than accessibility/usability for wayland that leaves many use cases and entire demographics of people out in the cold.
So yes, X11, which is still the least worst option. Better to have the ability to do all things than have to wait decades+ for developers to write complex extensions to do things (and just for their DE, causing fragmentation).
It might have changed since I last used openrc but I remember there was no user services (I find this quite useful with systemd) and there was no socket activated services neither which is quite nice.
> It might have changed since I last used openrc but I remember there was no user services
Was looking into this exact thing this week. Amusingly, the suggestion I read on the gentoo wiki is to run a user instance of runit, which... I actually like that, but it does start to beg the question of why not use that everywhere.
In a way ot reminds me of the Phantom Secure story. If you are suspected to purpusefully facilitate crime, you can be held responsible. This seems to be true as well in the US.
In the phantom secure story the intent was crystal clear. In the Telegram case it seems that the refusal to cooperate with investigations cast enough doubts to arrest the CEO and put him in similar shoes.
It's so much worse than that (at least under US law, but I assume French law, which has fewer speech and evidentiary protections, is worse still). By putting himself in the position where he was clearly and straightforwardly able to furnish assistance to criminal investigations, he likely acquired some form of accomplice liability (or whatever equivalent they have in France) as soon as he refused to comply with a lawful order: the refusal itself is a purposeful facilitation.
That's a distinction between end-to-end encrypted applications and cosmetically "secure" apps like Telegram.
That's what I meant, the lack of cooperation is what shows the lack of intent, in the end.
I do not understand why this is turned around a "freedom of speech" thing as there is nothing about censoring speech in the first place, this all about criminal activity happening on the platform and the responsibility of the business behind the platform.
reply