Sure, that makes the case for reform stronger for police unions, but why should bad union behavior (ie. protecting criminal or incompetent members) be tolerated at all?
>Curtailing that freedom should be a measure of last resort.
This just feels like it turns into a cudgel against whatever groups you hate. Bad police unions? Boo! Let's ban them! Bad teacher unions? Free association is protected by the constitution so they get a pass. Catholic priests? On one hand they're consistently hated on by progressives, but on the other hand much of the arguments that can be used to defend them can be applied to teachers.
That's seemingly contradicted, or at least cast in doubt by your own article:
>The Buffalo police union, the Buffalo Police Benevolent Association, was angered by the suspensions of the two officers, and it retaliated on June 5 by withdrawing its legal fees support for any other Buffalo officers for incidents related to the protests. [...] All 57 police officers from the Buffalo Police Department emergency response team resigned from the team, although they did not resign from the department.[45] According to the police union's president, the mass resignations were a show of solidarity with the two suspended officers.[46] However, his account has been contradicted by two of the resigned officers, who stated they resigned because of a lack of legal coverage. One of these officers said "many" of the 57 resigned officers did not resign to support the two suspended officers.[47]
Either the officers resigned in protest, or the union withdrew legal support in protest and the officers resigned as a result of that. Either way, the resignations were a result of union support for the criminals in their ranks.
>Recently a Massachusetts trooper who engaged in railroading a fabricated suspect was exposed for sending extreme racist, sexist, antisemitic texts to fellow troopers. But the names of those troopers and their own behavior remains opaque to the public. That's crazy! Nobody should put up with that.
What does sending "sending extreme racist, sexist, antisemitic texts to fellow troopers" have to do with cover-ups? Anyways my guess is that it's general policy for police/courts to not release evidence unless it's part of a trial, similar to how the Epstein files weren't released across 3 administrations and took an act of congress to get released.
I was about to downvote this for being obviously false, but after some research this does appear to be true, because ssh uses some channel binding mechanism to prevent your public key authentication from being replayed/reused by the "man" in the middle.
This is one of those situations where it's necessary to be very precise about the security properties.
Specifically, if you bind authentication to the connection, then an attacker who impersonates the server (in this case because it's the first connection, but in other settings because they have a fake certificate), then client authentication is not portable to another connection, so the attacker can't mount a classic MITM attack. However -- and this is a big however -- that doesn't mean that there aren't serious security problems. For example:
* If you use SSH to copy a secret such as an API key to the server, then the attacker still knows the API key.
* If you download some file (e.g., a script) from the server and then trust it, the attacker can use that to provide a malicious script.
>* If you use SSH to copy a secret such as an API key to the server, then the attacker still knows the API key.
That's much harder to pull off though, because you need to replicate the environment close enough so that the victim doesn't suspect anything. Do they put their config files in /var/lib or random docker volumes? Do they use docker compose or docker-compose, etc.
Basically, the client signs the shared key obtained through Diffie-Hellman key exchange, which then gets verified by the server. This ensures that the client and the server have the same shared key, hence no man-in-the-middle.
How's this conspiracy supposed to work? A technical audience who cares about privacy aren't going to be placated by 4GB sitting on their disk. They're going to want some sort of analysis (like http interception), or probably not use chrome in the first place. A non-technical audience isn't going to make the association between 4GB of disk usage and the privacy implications.
1. I've got a Chrome local model stored on my drive
2. I see a heavily promoted "AI search" box in chrome
Natural Conclusion: when I use all the promoted AI features in chrome it's using the local AI model. This is not true; Google is being intentionally misleading.
I suspect the type of person who is even aware of this 4GB blob is the type of person who would research its usage. Pretty high venn diagram crossover.
Yeah. The fictional user doesn’t know anything about AI but knows about this 4gb file…because of news stories about how bad a 4gb file must be. Outside of that, they don’t know or care and wonder if that means that need to add some more “memory” to their computer.
That misses the point of the original commenter. He is saying that local model only powers things where privacy is not so relevant and that creates the illusion.
> so another package manager is needed for which grapheneos people seem to favor obtainium over f-droid, which I find is another strange decision
So just download f-droid yourself? Why the fixation on having a definitive, preloaded app store?
>I much prefer a fully OSS package manager and there is real value in having people compile from the sources externally, maybe even reproducibly so, instead of trusting the github packages.
Operating an app store is almost as much work as maintaining an Android fork, and it's hard to fault the authors for not sinking massive amounts of effort into doing it, when there's already f-droid, play store (plus aurora store), obtanium, and many others.
>as the data shows they largely just summarize the current knowledge, with little predictive ability.
What counts as "little predictive ability"? Do weather forecasts count as "predictions", or are they "indicators" too? Sure, they might have a more consistent track record, but then again weather is less susceptible to human interference than whatever happens in geopolitics within the next year. Prognostications about future climate might be less reliable, do those have to be downgraded to "indicators" too? On the flip side, prediction markets have a very good track record when forecasting certain events, such as interest rate decisions. Does that mean whether it's a "prediction" or a "indicator" depends on what you're forecasting?
reply