In short, yes, sort of.

However, I don’t want it come off that Signal is bad by any means. It’s the right choice for most people. I use Signal, and I really like it, in fact, but I know it’s limitations. I’m not as familiar with SimpleX, but after a quick look at their GitHub, it does have extra privacy over Signal. The kicker is that it looks like an open network (if I misunderstood something in the code, please someone correct me) that anyone can join. While that’s great for accessibility, it opens up attack surface. Even still, that will work for most people.

The key issue in this story is that the cabinet was using an open network with known vulnerabilities. They should have been using secure government comms. Is the encryption any better than Signal? Probably not (like I said above, NSA itself designed a bunch of our encryption algorithms). But it’s a closed network where only authorized users can be on it.

In the end, for most uses Signal is good, SimpleX is a bit better. Matrix can also be good if proper precautions are used in accessing it. The government, though, shouldn’t be using these open networks for classified communications; it’s really poor OPSEC for them. Also, a resistance group is not the government, so operating more clandestinely on more common messaging platforms is a good choice. When a resistance group may want to rethink that communications strategy is when they get large, powerful, and organized enough to operate more or less in the open with impunity. If a resistance group can be a de facto government, then it may be time to migrate to a closed network that is fully under your control. Most groups never get to that point, though.

ETA: Choosing a communications system can seem tough, but it’s really just a matter of knowing the capabilities and limitations of the tool. You’d think the government would be better at that.

Bester is by far one of the best characters in sci-fi, and some of Walter Koenig’s best work.

https://thehackernews.com/2025/02/hackers-exploit-signals-linked-devices.html And this is just the latest. I’d imagine there’s information that is closer held about other vulnerabilities.

It’s really not as secure as one would want for government communications. It’s good enough for activists because for most, there is security through obscurity. Governments, though, are targeted and known quantities with very public facing people. An adversary can pop an official’s phone with relative ease. An activist, though, is generally mostly anonymous, so if the government wants to go after that individual, they have to find them first, which is harder.

And that’s just looking at message content. Even without the content, metadata is insanely valuable. You can infer a lot just from who is in a chat and the frequency of messages. Just seeing that cabinet officials were in a chat that started getting that much activity would put any adversary on guard.

All that is to say that while Signal’s encryption is good (hell a ton of modern encryption algorithms came from NSA itself), the app itself is not good enough for a government. If an activist group gets enough power, it would be prudent for them to move to a different, more secure platform if they’re worried about the full weight of the nation-state coming down on them. That is to say, a police department doesn’t have the resources to do anything meaningful with even just metadata, but the FBI is a whole different story.

TL;DR: Signal is good, but not great, and it is certainly not up to the task of protecting actual government communications.

Yeah, it’s not technically impossible to stop web scrapers, but it’s difficult to have a lasting, effective solution. One easy way is to block their user-agent assuming the scraper uses an identifiable user-agent, but that can be easily circumvented. The also easy and somewhat more effective way is to block scrapers’ and caching services’ IP addresses, but that turns into a game of whack-a-mole. You could also have a paywall or login to view content and not approve a certain org, but that only will work for certain use cases, and that also is easy to circumvent. If stopping a single org’s scraping is the hill to die on, good luck.

That said, I’m all for fighting ICE, even if it’s futile. Just slowing them down and frustrating them is useful.

I get the sentiment, but depending on the particular activity, not breaking the law is an advantage. A peaceful protest in front of a government building following all laws makes it harder to justify breaking up, especially breaking up violently. It’s a PR game just as much as it’s a social action game. To be clear, though, this doesn’t cover every instance, but there are times where following the rules to the letter is beneficial…just not always.

It’s strange. Then again, the actual Nazis kept meticulous records. These images and videos will be played for generations alongside the images and videos of other atrocities throughout history.

As an Illinoisan, Pritzker is the exception that proves the rule. He uses his money for good, and has been amazing for the state. He really shows that billionaires can do good but the vast majority choose not to.

So, with that said, I’m all for letting him lead with AOC and Bernie. He can really bankroll efforts.

Oh I saw it. That’s what I was going for in the “vintage vibe”: back when people got medals for making Nazis afraid for their lives.

I have some experience coding (I study AI and have a Computer Science background). Here are some general recommendations from my perspective that you are more than welcome to disagree with.

1. Know your goal. Each programming language is a tool, and each has its strengths and weaknesses. Get familiar with what those strengths and weaknesses are before starting a project in a language. You might shoot yourself in the foot prematurely by picking a language less suitable for the task.

2. Use what you’re comfortable with. There are nerd fights all the time about different languages. Don’t just choose a language because it’s popular or niche. Sometimes you want to use a lesser known language. Other times a “normie” language is perfectly acceptable.

3. The computer is dumb. It will do exactly what you tell it to do. The most common errors I’ve made are where the computer did what I told it to do but not what I wanted it to do.

4. In the case of cyber security, technical hacks are harder to accomplish than something like social engineering. If you’re a beginner, trying to find a zero day is going to be nigh impossible. Keep achievable goals.

5. If you haven’t programmed before and you don’t know what language to start with, I’d recommend C, especially if you really want to learn. The language itself is simple (but semi-difficult) and runs fast. You’ll learn the real fundamentals and build good habits. From there, I’d jump to C++ and C# or Java. Then learn Python and Rust.

6. If you’re not super keen on learning programming in general and just want to write things to automate “boring stuff” or bots, in other words “little projects,” learn Python. It’s probably the easiest to learn, and you can start making usable scripts very fast. Python runs slower than other languages, and it’s not guaranteed to run everywhere based on versions or just not having it installed. In general, it’s a great place to start if where you want to end is simple automation for yourself.

Those are really just my opinions; plenty of people disagree with me on what your first language should be. Feel free to reach out if you have questions or need help in learning.

I love the “We’ll beat 'em again” one. That has a great vintage vibe.

No, you see, that’s illegal discrimination, but if someone says “No N*****” or “No Arabs,” well, that’s just free speech and perfectly fine for good, upstanding white American citizens to do. (very heavy /S if it’s not abundantly clear)

How stupid does he think we are?

Before or after destroying the Department of Education? The entire reason behind this is that uneducated people don’t know their rights or how the government works, so the GOP can run roughshod over our rights.

Because he conceded that it’s not within his power to dismantle a government department that was made via a law. In other words, he blinked on infringing on that core Article I power. That said, I don’t think it’s a huge win, and he will try again. But at least we are finding the frontiers of Republicans’ stomach for authoritarian behavior. It’s not great, but it’s something.

Don’t forget to say “pwease” and “tank you”! At this point, I’m shocked but not surprised that the Democrats are just rolling over.

I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice […]

That was Martin Luther King Jr. talking about civil rights. It rings just as true today for trans people.

In some cases, sure I’ll grant it can be unfair for newly transitioned women, i.e. on hormones for less than a year. After that, any potential advantage is for a large part nullified (which is overly simplistic as a timeline but whatever). Also, let’s be real honest on just how many people this affects. The amount is so staggeringly small that even if we put aside that there is only a temporary advantage, there’s really not much of a problem, just a handful of individuals.

But, and this is vitally important to understand, sports are not a core, vital governmental interest and thus do not need to be legislated. To be very plain, games are not important to the functioning of society. Individual leagues can come up with their own policies if they feel it so necessary to exclude the small number of trans women who want to participate.

The entire “debate” just shows we are not a serious society. God forbid trans women want to exist and pursue their interests.

As for Gavin Newsome, this really shows he’s trying a bit too hard to start a presidential run with a theory of “let’s be Republican Lite.” That worked so well the last time.

Hiding behind “but they committed a crime!” is going to be used to justify all kinds of horrors.

Yep. Anything they don’t like will be criminalized. Then when there is an inevitable protest because of some overreach, the government will react by going to the media and vilifying the protests for supporting “hardened criminals.” It’s so transparent.

It just goes to show that legality and morality, while sometimes overlapping, are not the same.

That’s really great! I love that fabric!

I’ve been doing some thinking about this recently, and I think it comes from two places. One is the easily spotted malice toward workers and stepping on them (à la Elon). The other for managers and the like who are not straight up sociopaths is that a lot of these people have no meaning in their lives and have never really done anything they really believe in (or bleed for that matter). So, they try to derive meaning from their relatively boring, unimportant job, and try to get others into it like they are. They’re starved for camaraderie by the very job they’ve invested their entire lives in. It’s sad really.

I agree. Make them uncomfortable. Make them see how reviled they are.