I wouldn't go quite that far. It doesn't only protect their business interest; it definitely does achieve the goals they claim—like helping non-tech-literate users to avoid getting scammed with malware—it's just they're only doing it this way because it also aligns with their business interest.

To that end I'd contest the "Security Theater" label. All security measures are ultimately implemented in a way that defends the interests of the owners. It's just that people have forgotten or aren't aware that Proprietary Software means they're not the owners.

Of course if it was just about users' safety, the most effective way to help people avoid getting scammed is to educate them, but that would make people less dependent on Google and less susceptible to vendor lock-in, and people may even start having dangerous thoughts like "it sure is weird how many identifying traits of a scam are also just standard business practices for large corporations like Google."

I agree with the sentiment, but I do have to argue with some of his points (because it's fun, and it's okay to do things just for the hell of it). Excellent point, ineffectively articulated

I wrote my MSc on The Metaverse. Learning to built VR stuff was fun, but a complete waste of time. There was precisely zero utility in having gotten in early... But I'm struggling to think of anyone who has earned anything more than bragging rights by being first.

You're your own counterexample. You got to experience the metaverse when it was still alive, which you wouldn't have if you had waited for just a few years. And you got a Masters Degree out of it, not just bragging rights.

But I'm struggling to think of anyone who has earned anything more than bragging rights by being first. Some early investors made money

So you're not struggling that much if you can start of the next sentence with an example of people who earned more than just bragging rights.

But I'm struggling to think of anyone who has earned anything more than bragging rights by being first. Some early investors made money - but an equal and opposite number lost money.

This grossly overestimates the ratio of successes to failures. You're muuuuuuch more likely to lose money on the gamble of The Next Big Thing than win; for every HTTP there's a Gopher and Usenet and a dozen others that all look the same from the outside looking in.

For every HTML 2.0 you might have tried, you were just as likely to have got stuck in the dead-end of Flash.

Flash is a terrible example, it ran its lifecycle already, sure, but it was HUGE back in the day. And people benefited from using it; some of my favorite animators and gamedevs cut their teeth on Flash, people's work got recognized by a global audience, people landed jobs, Flash made it onto cable TV channels, people still light up at the mention of Homestar Runner to this day. People also made money, sure, but there are more benefits to playing with tech than "it makes money happen."

Which brings me to my final gripe: this is all framed as if the only benefit of a technology is if it's productive or profitable. When you discuss your favorite show with friends, are you considering whether the conversation can be converted into capital? When you watch a beautiful sunset, do you fret over whether the clouds will help you achieve your quarterly goals? Out on dates with your SOs, do you have to take a break in the bathroom to worry whether the evening is meeting KPIs?

Sometimes the benefit of things is just having the experience, instead of treating it as a means to an end. Yeah, don't let the FOMO ruin your day, but maybe take some time to play around with a doomed technology before it becomes abandoned and the community ceases to be. Maybe you'll become a recognized expert, maybe you'll learn some valuable lessons you can transfer to tech with more longevity, or maybe you'll just have fun.

And honestly, whats the fucking point of living, working and grinding and suffering, if not for the fun in between it all?

Matrix very recently has had e2ee calling since at least last april

I don't host a server currently, so I can't fully recommend it without knowledge of the backend, but i'm liking the experience as a user

Just looked at Session, and holy shit is that a massive downside...

From their own whitepaper:

Through the integration of a blockchain network, Session adds a financial requirement for anyone wishing to host a server on the network, and thus participate in Session’s message storage and routing architecture.

So you have to pay to self-host, and that's somehow an upside???

This staking system provides a defence against Sybil attacks by limiting attackers based on the amount of financial resources they have available.

Which is a fine explanation in a world where everyone has a relatively equal amount of wealth. This is the epitome of dunning-kruger economics: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Firstly, the need for attackers to buy or control Session Tokens to run Session Nodes creates a market feedback loop which increases the cost of acquiring sufficient tokens to run large portions of the network. That is, as the attacker buys or acquires more tokens and stakes them, removing them from the circulating supply, the supply of the Session Token is decreased while the demand from the attacker must be sustained. This causes the price of any remaining Session Tokens to increase, creating an increasing price feedback loop which correlates with the scale of the attack

So the more nodes a single entity holds, the harder it becomes for other entities to buy nodes and break the monopoly? Did you take 3 seconds to think this through???

Secondly, the staking system binds an attacker to their stake, meaning if they are found to be performing active attacks, the underlying value of their stake is likely to decline as users lose trust in the protocol, or could be slashed by the network, increasing the sunk cost for the attacker.

"Assuming every user is a perfectly rational actor, malicious actors would be shunned. This is somehow due to the economic incentive, and not just how humans operate when they're assumed to be perfectly rational."

Also: malicious actors when they find out they might lose their money if they get caught: "welp, I better not do that then. Thanks laissez-faire capitalism!"

Jesus christ fucked on a pike, these dipshits really drank the crypto kool-aid, huh?

Nobody wants to point out that Alexey Grigorev changes to being named Gregory after 2 paragraphs?

Slop journalism at its sloppiest. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that this story was entorely fabricated.

Because privacy is a spectrum, and it makes a good stepping off point for the people that still use text messages and social media chat clients to stay in touch. I can't convince half of my nerd friends to leave Discord for literally anything less shit, but I can convince even my tech-averse mother to use Signal instead of FaceTime.

I think it's Jeff Goldblum as Dr. Ian Malcolm just saying "never eating, ahh, again" with the same cadence as "life, ahh, finds a way"

I agree with your main point, but I do want to criticize

I think he was a bit off the rails and a leftist hater.

This is an understatement. He was an ecofascist in all except name. In Industrial Society and Its Future, his critiques of the right basically boil down to "they're bad at optics" and his critiques of the left basically boil down to "they care about animals, [slurs], and women." He was the archetype of "claim to be centrist because I know how unpopular my actual opinions are."

That being said, I also want to shed light on a little glimmer of hope hidden inside the surveillance state:

if there were to be a socialist revolution in a 1st world country any time soon, just how much of an advantage the state has over the people due to it’s surveillance network.

A few counterpoints to this:

1. A point I learned from a movie of all places, no less poignant that it was a movie about resisting the surveillance state (Enemy of the State): one of the primary principles of Guerilla Warfare is to use your opponents biggest strength and turn it into their weakness. This leads me into my next point:

2. There is way too much data. A major part of the push for AI is because it can emulate human decision making while parsing orders of magnitude more data. Trying to find a person in Petabytes worth of video and imagery and metadata is like finding a needle in a hay-planet. Sure, they may have all that surveillance, but most of the signal gets lost in the billions of times more noise.

3. The government is not a monolith. The 50-agencies-in-a-trench-coat may try to pass themselves off as a unified entity, but when push comes to shove, they're a bunch of organizations that all have their own agenda, and each organization is just a bunch of people that all have their own agenda. Push hard enough, and you'll start to see the cracks form. Talk to any government employee and you'll soon realize their org is just as susceptible to all the internal bullshit squabbles that any private company is.

4. Piggybacking off of 2 and 3: they need manpower that they don't have. When we talk about "the state" or "the government," we can lose sight of the fact that these organizations aren't composed of countless, faceless people. Instead of 10% of all civilians, it's less than 1%. This number may still be huge compared to the size of local leftist org chapters and lemmy communities, but it's only like 1.3% of the working class.

5. Combining 3 and 4: the large majority of those government employees are also part of the proletariat. Their loyalty to the government only extends as far as their paycheck, and if any kind of class revolution were to kick into full swing, there would be a mass exodus of labor. There would also be hundreds of thousands of workers who are sympathetic to the cause on the inside, throwing wrenches in all kinds of cogs.

So yes, things are pretty bleak with the state of privacy in this day and age. No, there is no magical solution where an authoritarian government just willfully cedes its power to control its populace. No, there won't be any way to altogether avoid revolutionaries being incarcerated or worse. No, it won't fix itself, nor will somebody else take the reigns while we can comfortably be bystanders.

But it's not already a lost cause.

I'm going to comment again, not to be an asshole, but because this is an entirelt separate stream of thoughts from my previous comment:

'GUI/UX for everything, absolutely no CLI' approach

That's not a distro thing, it's a Desktop Environment thing. I personally use GNOME on my daily driver, but I've also used Xfce and MATE and gotten away with those. I'd say that GNOME is probably the most "idiot proof," which is why I use it, but YMMV.

Linux "requiring the CLI" hasn't been true for quite a few years now, it just has stuck around for a couple of reasons (imo):

1. Tutorials/guides/advice about Linux tends to focus on the CLI because it's easier to figure out someone's OS and have them copy-paste a command, than to find out the specifics of their graphical setup and walk them through every window and button press.

2. New users need to know and understand the difference between Kernel, OS, and Desktop Environment to find the answers they're looking for.

If you tell Grandma that you installed Linux for her, the first time she tries to figure it out herself, she's gonna search "how to change volume in Linux" on Google, and she's going to be bombarded with a thousand answers all saying something different, most telling her to install programs, and most telling her to use the command line. Because Linux is not an operating system, it's a family of dozens of operating systems that can each be configured thousands of different ways.

If you tell her "I installed Fedora," she's going to run into the same issue, but on a lesser scale. At least there's only a few hundred different ways on a per-distro basis.

If you tell her "I installed GNOME," she will look up "how to change volume in GNOME," and find her answer. But now you need to explain to her the difference between the three, and when to include that information in her searches, and she will ask "why could I just say 'how to X in Windows?' and didn't have to memorize 3 different names for the same thing that all give me different answers???"

And yes, your grandma will just call you to ask anyway, but what about when it's your friend trying to figure it out at 3 am and he can't get ahold of you?

Meanwhile, the terminal is (more or less) distro-/DE-agnostic. So their options are to learn more about how is Opperating System formed than they'll realistically ever need to know, or use the reviled terminal. Such is the plight of DIY OSes.

Windows hasn't been "No CLI" since the requirements for TPM were added to Win 11 at the latest. Arguably, it's been even longer if you wanted to get any customization beyond "changing window border colors and desktop background," or if you wanted to do "hacker" stuff like remove start menu ads, but I guess most average users just didn't bother.

Resentment aside, this is more attacking the letter of the query than the spirit. At best, OP admits the terminal isn't bad and scary but still wants a distro that works best for GUI-focused people, at worst their eyes glazed over and they stopped reading everything you said after "when I was using it"

Reliable, clear release/support schedule: Debian Stable

Unlike Fedora Spins, most upstream distros don't come with a DE pre-packaged, you choose it during the install process (or install a custom one from other sources post-install).

DEs currently offered by the Debian Installer include: Xfce, LXDE, LXQt, MATE, Lomiri, and of course Plasma and GNOME.

Not in the installer, but in the repository: Cinnamon, Budgie, Enlightenment, FVWM-Crystal, GNUstep/Window Maker, Sugar, "and possibly others" (according to the wiki).

You can also do what I do on my less-powerful laptops and just install a window-manager and associated utilities—just make sure to uncheck all DE options during install (you will be forced to use the console until you have a display server and window manager, tho). Right now I'm rocking i3 on my laptops; I would use Sway, but for some reason it's more resource intensive.

Other offerings in the repository include: Openbox, Fluxbox, Compiz, Awesome, dwm, Notion, and Wmii

My personal recs are i3 (and recommended packages), Xfce, or MATE. I've used and liked all 3. I still use GNOME for my desktop, but those 3 are what I go with otherwise.

Since you're installing Debian, presumably you've done the required reading according to their wiki, and seen the DontBreakDebian page.

If not, here's the portion I'm thinking of (emphasis mine)

Don't make a FrankenDebian

Debian Stable should not be combined with other releases carelessly. If you're trying to install software that isn't available in the current Debian Stable release, it's not a good idea to add repositories for other Debian releases.

First of all, apt-get upgrade default behavior is to upgrade any installed package to the highest available version. If, for example, you configure the forky archive on a trixie system, APT will try to upgrade almost all packages to forky.

This can be mitigated by configuring apt pinning to give priority to packages from trixie.

However, even installing few packages from a "future" release can be risky. The problems might not happen right away, but the next time you install updates.

The reason things can break is because the software packaged for one Debian release is built to be compatible with the rest of the software for that release. For example, installing packages from forky on a trixie system could also install newer versions of core libraries including libc6. This results in a system that is not testing or stable but a broken mix of the two.

Repositories that can create a FrankenDebian if used with Debian Stable:

• Debian testing release (currently forky)
• Debian unstable release (also known as sid)
• Ubuntu, Mint or other derivative repositories are not compatible with Debian!
• **Ubuntu PPAs and other repositories created to distribute single applications **

Some third-party repositories might appear safe to use as they contain only packages that have no equivalent in Debian. However, there are no guarantees that any repository will not add more packages in future, leading to breakage.

Finally, packages in official Debian releases have gone through extensive testing, often for months, and only fit packages are allowed in a release. On the other hand, packages from external sources might alter files belonging to other packages, configure the system in unexpected ways, introduce vulnerabilities, cause licensing issues.

Once packages from unofficial sources are introduced in a system it can become difficult to pinpoint the cause of breakage especially if it happens after months.

I would personally add that this isn't a case of "if", but rather "when". Even if it works at the beginning, all it takes is Mint deciding they want to use a newer library when they update the package you're using, and suddenly your system won't boot and there's no clear, easy solution other than "restore from backup."

Even if you know what you're doing, I would limit tinkering to binaries managed in the $HOME/.local/bin (and any applications that work as package management for that, like cargo, pip or homebrew) or packages that you completely control yourself (such as through git pulls and compiling yourself).

"Stick to the official repo" is generally the advice I would give for any distro, with the exception of DIY OSes that are intended to be patchwork, like gentoo or Arch.

THAT BEING SAID: I'm not saying "don't install without a DE and piece your desired DE together from their parts." Debian has a lot of DEs, window managers, and their individual parts all in the official repos; a lot of the difference you see between the versions Debian offers and the versions Mint or Ubuntu offer are basically just theming that you can do yourself without altering the system packages.

If you absolutely must install a 3rd party repo, just understand you are sacrificing Debian's selling point of stability, and waiving your rights to hold the Debian Maintainers responsible; and when your system breaks (which might not be for many years), it will be entirely your own fault.