This is my first time reading about this. I’m very curious to hear a lawyer’s thoughts on this.

If you change the bootloader to some other software, how could the company be expected to provide support for something they may have no knowledge of? Suppose I develop some theoretical SnowsuitOS and then complain to Samsung support when it doesnt run on my smartphone? It seems very likely that some conflict in my code could be causing problems, as opposed to an issue with my hardware.

I feel like to require this, you’d have to prove that the software is functionally equivalent to their software, right? (Side note, isn’t this problem undecidable? Program equivalence?)

If you replace a wheel on a tractor you can pretty easily define what it should and should not do. Determining equivalence seems simpler with a physical situation. On the other hand, I’m pretty sure program equivalence is not a solved problem.

My point here is that I don’t think it’s reasonable to legally require a software company to offer support without limits, because they cannot be sure that there is not an issue with the (unsupported) software you are using.

They’re part of Department of Homeland Security. NSA is part of Department of Defense. So they’re actually not, unless you meant this figuratively.

Blatant discrimination

I’ve found on my android phone that the bitwarden prompt comes up more reliably if I tap on the password field instead of the username field.

Most people do not know who Satoshi is.

This is the integrated search on the home screen of my android (pixel). For a lot of mobile phone users, it’s the fastest way to search something. I can just Google search directly from the home screen instead of opening up a browser.

The good news is, a lot of old secrets won’t really matter anymore by the time we have quantum computers that can break the encryption. There will obviously be a big impact on information that was encrypted just before we get a working quantum computer that can crack modern crypto.

In cryptography discussions, I feel like we’re usually implying (or even saying out loud) that the encryption is secure for a sufficient amount of time and computer power. Perhaps people outside of cryptography don’t know it, but I think there is a reasonable expectation that encrypted communications could be decrypted at some point in the future. We just hope it’s sufficiently far enough away (or difficult enough) to not be a problem.

Honestly as soon as we get some good post-quantum crypto, we’ll probably want to switch over to it asap, even if good quantum computers are still far out, just to help alleviate some of this problem. Of course, I imagine we’re still going to be finding new things once the technology is real and being used. Let’s hope the post-quantum cryptography algorithms we come up with actually are strong against a sufficiently large quantum computer.

I mean, yes? Here’s another photo from the same shoot posted on their Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/CVQzDKmhVxN/?igsh=MTl1N25xemZhN3hwMw==

This is it! Old water coolers

First three search queries I did had zero results. Seems cool but not enough stuff indexed, I guess.

Yeah I saw this news today and literally don’t even understand how it affects me. I don’t know what the difference is between Wallet and Pay.

Free two day delivery and access to prime video

You’ve gotta be kidding me with this shit

Part of the problem extended beyond software. Back when I got into recording, FireWire was necessary for the data bandwidth and it was standard on Macs. I had to install a card to work with my recording interface on Windows.

On a side note, been using Reaper for years and it has been great as a hobbyist option. I understand why any professional would use something like ProTools instead, though.

Who cares

What OP is suggesting is actually in that Wikipedia article. Apparently it’s called “Baltimore Stockbroker / Psychic Sports Picks”.

Joey B himself isn’t updating his own Twitter page.

They’re literally quoting someone. It’s standard practice in media and grammatically correct.