Why would an optional field have a default value? Shouldn’t it just be unset?

Did they actually do anything beyond using goldberg fork? Haven’t heard that “DenuvOwO” ever did anything special, I mean, they even have a Discord server

Thank god the East Germans did not have systemic sexual abuse of children. Phew.

That’s why you join private trackers.

My seedbox is easily downloading at 2 Gbit/s. I assume that’s an HDD hardware limit, it’s a shared 40 Gbit connection actually.

Damn, it’s almost like torrenting works exactly the same way.

Changing the TOS is explicitly allowed. You can refuse to accept the changes but then the company has the right to end their relationship with you (i.e. terminate your account).

There are also strict limits. Something like: “Your account may be terminated for any unspecified reason” is illegal, I’m pretty sure.

And the recent DSA of the EU has further limited social media company’s rights to terminate accounts. I believe they must provide a way to fight terminations and listen to your arguments. Other countries may have similar laws but I cannot speak for them.

Banning clickthrough contracts would genuinely break large parts of the internet though. No more online purchases for one, including anything from Steam to Amazon.

It’s much more complicated than that. Social media platforms have a TOS that binds them just as much as the user. It’s literally just a contract.

The social media company also has much more limited rights to terminate such a contract than the user. At least that’s the case in countries with any consumer protection.

That’s how YouTubers at least in Germany have successfully forced YouTube to reinstate their channel. YouTube failed to prove a violation of their TOS, therefore the contract termination was null and void, therefore the contract is still valid.

There is no contract when you have entered a restaurant. After you ordered your food, there is a contract and you cannot be kicked out for arbitrary reasons anymore. If you are kicked out for no reason, you can sue for damages (but you cannot force the restaurant to enter any new contracts with you, e.g. another meal).

Adoption in English speaking countries only. Why is adoption equally terrible internationally if the name is to blame?

Seriously, the ONLY reason I actually know gimp has other meanings is because of discussions of the program.

Anything below 10°F is actively dangerous. Anything above 110°F is actively dangerous.

NYC barely ever reaches 0°F according to this site:

https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/new-york/lowest-temperatures-by-year

Seriously, NYC is closer to having regular 100°F weather than 0°F and it is in the Northern US!

In other terms: -18°C is extremely fucking cold, 38°C is just regular hot.

0°F is way colder than 100°F is hot.

There are hardly any population centers that reach the lower temperature while there’s a shitton of them that reach the hotter one. That should say enough about how dangerous and inhospitable each is.

Worse: If the chosen axioms are contradictory, then the theorem is effectively worthless.

And it is impossible to know whether axioms are consistent. You can only prove that they are not.

Yeah, that’s again a little different. You have to fully trust WhatsApp that they are doing what they promise. You can’t really verify this yourself.

Besides, if the app is open source, backdoors are generally more difficult to implement. Especially for something like E2EE, where people look very closely at what the application does with keys. Same with age verification in my opinion. You’d need to pull off a lot of gymnastics to put in a backdoor, see the xz utils one which was only achieved through several obfuscated stages in a codebase rarely ever looked at by another human.

Can you explain a little what you mean with:

So they simply scrape post decryption from the user’s device.

As far as I know, no social media company’s posts are E2EE. After all: It’s not possible to have both public posts and E2EE. “Direct messages” to other users can be E2EE but you’d have to trust the company with the encryption keys.

The only condition that requires Zero-Knowledge Protocols to function is that your device is not hijacked by hackers (and there are no deliberate backdoors and such). This can be achieved by having the app be open source with regular security audits. The social media company can do nothing to identify you, nor could the government (unless again, they collude and share secrets).

But yeah, social media can already identify most users because of surveillance capitalism. The goal however is to ensure identification is not in any way made easier via age verification.

You cannot turn a ZKP into being secretely not ZKP without significant effort though.

Take the following example protocol:

1. Social media app sends you a token to verify.
2. You append a private secrete string to the token and hash it with a known, collision resistant hash function.
3. You send the hash to the government’s server and request an “18+” signature. The signature should correspond to a public key.
4. You send the signature back to the social media app, including the secret you used.
5. The social media calculates the hash of its token + your secret and then checks whether the governmen’t signature is valid with that value.

The government will not know which social media site was used, the social media site will not discover anything about your identity beyond a binary “is above 18 years old” statement. This is because you control all communication.

To discover anything else, they would BOTH have to collude in some significant way. They can only do so in step 5, by having the social media app send the value you gave it to the government. Maybe there exists a protocol that you control that works against this threat as well, I’m not sure.

But if they collude in step 5 - what prevents the social media company from sending all information it has about you to the government already all the time, even without age verification? Like IP addresses, phone number, access time etc. If the government further controls all the ISP servers and log which traffic from where goes where, it could certainly identify you already.

Damn it, I was trying to go for the “When” + simple present to check whether my statement worked.

I thought:

“When 1 equals 2, blablabla” is always true, therefore [my statement above] works as well.

But I should’ve thought “When 1 equaled 2, …” which doesn’t sound true anymore.

That is to say: Fuck grammatical tenses!

Reason #2801 why vacuous truths are awesome.

“When I first met you, you promised to give me all your money” is a true statement because I have never actually met you.

Just be careful not to test this in court.

Makes sense though.

The complex Riemann-Zeta function (Zeta(x) = sum from 1 to infinity of 1/n^x) only converges for Re(x) > 1, else it is infinite. We can use analytic continuation - which I understand as extending the function such that it remains holomorphic (basically continuous but in the complex numbers and for some reason well-defined) and find the value of Zeta(-1) that way.

The value of Zeta(-1) when viewed this way is -1/12.

It’s not really saying the sum of all natural numbers is equal to -1/12. It’s really just a mathematical trick, just like: lim (x -> 0) x/x = 1 but this doesn’t mean 0/0 = 1.

deleted by creator

True. I should’ve added: “Without significant foreign support”.

Like no shit, if neighboring countries provides weapons, training and even manpower then it’s hardly considered an uprising, is it? More like a proxy war.

That covers Vietnam, Cambodia and Syria. The latter was literally just a gigantic proxy war. Like look at this shit, this is not a popular uprising:

Don’t know enough about Iraq, but in Afghanistan the military did jack shit against the Taliban and in Myanmar the military was the one rebelling.

Every single uprising hinged on:

• Who is supported by the country’s own military?
• Who is supported by foreign nation’s militaries and to which extent?

None of them depended on the popular opinion of civilians.

East Germany 1953, Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, China 1989.

It does not cause any long-lasting unrest. Crushing protests with tanks is extremely effective and has always worked if the military was called upon and willing.