awooo

I think what they mean is that someone unfamiliar with your line of work might even read the entire post and come away with it with the view of "Okay, and?" since the title told them this was going to be about "What Does It Mean To Be A Signal Competitor?"

The problem there is that what Signal is is different to different people, someone might for example use it like any other chat application, in which case even something like Telegram (ew) or Discord could be an alternative to them.

Again, if someone is familiar with your blog, they'll know what you mean, but the blog post can be viewed by someone in isolation, in which case it won't be so clear, especially since it's also in relation to moving off of Telegram, which is not an E2EE platform at all by default

I think hands with pawpads and some proper claws are a good compromise :3

I'd be an anthro, so all the benefits of being hooman without being hooman (except sweating, so you'd be able to outrun me eventually)

Depends, if it's only biological changes, I'd get myself two hearts, and minimize the chances of any disease or aging knocking me out, then become an anthro folf because being hooman is overrated

If cybernetics are allowed, I'd probably get rid of the damn body and just have a virtual one, with my brain connected to some machine deep underground

Nope! The point is that the hardware is deployed, and strong attestation is available.

But for now, a lot of apps still rely on the old SafetyNet or weak integrity. So the clock is ticking, the more up to date devices running modern Android there are, the more likely these apps are to switch over to the new system and require hardware attestation, because why wouldn't they once everyone is "ready" for it.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue against, what I'm trying to say is that the technology is very dangerous and must be banned, I'm with you on user control. But I won't fall into a false sense of security about being able to bypass everything, because we don't have control over low level hardware as we do with software, so these megacorps have the upper hand.

They have already played along, all devices that have Google Play preinstalled have to pass this test.

But locking you out of installing software is not the point, it's much more insidious than that. What will happen is that major services you rely on will want your device to present a cryptographic proof it's running the original software, which can't be spoofed. So for example your YouTube would only send you over the video stream if it knows that on the other side there's an unmodified app running on an unmodified OS. Same thing goes for your bank. At some point you're so locked out of essential services when running a custom OS that nobody will do it, because these days you almost need a phone to function in society.

The hardware doesn't lock you out of your device, it lets remote servers present you with an ultimatum, if you don't present the proof you're out, if you do, that means you're running the stock OS and thus can't do anything.

Well not quite, you still cannot pass strong integrity, because it's based on a hardware chain of trust.

I'm sure there will be vulnerable hardware out there, and groups which are able to extract the keys, so nothing changes from a security perspective, you still can't fully trust the client to not scam you out of money or something.

But for forcing people to see ads, or discouraging the use of free software, adding vendor lock-in? You don't even need special hardware to be annoying about it, SafetyNet in its bypassable form has already made mobile payments unreliable on non-Google Android so much that it doesn't make sense to use them, because you could be denied service at random whenever the binary updates.

Strong attestation in play integrity is pretty much impossible to get around from an individual user's perspective, and in the best case scenario would be bypassable with significant effort, likely involving you having to buy leaked keys on the black market.

Won't work sadly, if you install a custom OS your device will not be able to attest to it being original, and play integrity won't pass (which would by extension include WEI). Not providing the results will be seen as just as bad as not passing. So as long as the vast majority of mobile users have it deployed you're screwed.

You can think of it as requiring everyone to wear a cryptographic ID badge to do something as simple as going to the store to buy groceries. You can always not wear it, but you will be denied service just as someone who has a "made up" ID.

The evil exists at the silicon level where they cryptographic keys are hidden from the user.

Hmm I think my main concern would be lack of kernel/firmware updates, running something like postmarketOS could partly solve that and still be nearly as easy to set up (just unlock and flash a prebuilt image)

But firmware is still almost entirely dependent on the vendor, since it's all signed and unpatchable.

Next issue would be lack of connectivity on a lot of phones, which have gone backwards and include USB 2.0 now. WiFi is an option, but less stable, I personally decided to just go 100Mbps and suffer.

As for the battery, it would help a lot if phones were designed to boot without one and they were removable, it all worked well for about half a year until I found out I had a spicy pillow and had to replace it with direct power to the board, which made the whole setup much less elegant and required soldering.

It all comes down to how devices are designed in the end. If someone took the time to make a computer instead of just a phone, and included features that make it useful past its initial life that aren't that popular (display output, microsd, headphone jack), mainlined all the drivers and maintained firmware, that would be a different story.

But that's not a very profitable model, because it's all about reducing waste and thus selling less. A lot needs to change.

Not sure myself, I'm trying to get into some IT jobs (not necessarily programming) that aren't anywhere near social media and are more focused on internet infrastructure, but getting any job is hard when you're starting out and I would like to avoid the evil ones at all cost.

But just as there is no ethical consumption in capitalism, there's no consensual work, so the values of wherever you end up working won't align with yourself or the other workers fully, it's just a question of degree.

A fursona is a better investment, benefits include:

• cute (even when you deny it)
• everyone loves it
• can be whatever you want, lots of choices
• expression of your inner self
• versatile
• can't really be stolen
• inner emotional support
• increases in personal value as you grow with it
• won't lie to you about making free capitalism coins™

Nice! That works way better than I expected!

Oh yeah, does get pretty toasty though!