It does, but if it has compromised the BIOS before that, that won’t get wiped.

deleted by creator

Something can’t become categorically imperative, a quiddidity such as an essentially categorical property is invariant with respect to time. It either is or it isn’t. Per contra, aesculapian aid might become dispositionally required.

You seem to be a bit confused about how asymmetric encryption works. There is no need for private keys to be transmitted for a messaging service to work. I encourage you to read about the difference between public and private keys in asymmetric encryption. They are generated in pairs, such that when something is encrypted using a public key, it can only be decrypted using the corresponding private key. So it’s not correct to say that the message can’t be decrypted by the intended recipient - they are in fact the only party who can, but even the sender can not.

It should most definitely be a valid assumption.

If the key passes through their servers at all (and it probably does,) then they have access to the keys and sufficient information to decrypt it. it’s possible the app does send keys independent of their server- I don’t know- but I very much doubt it.

The keys shouldn’t be on or go through a server anywhere, that would be an absolute joke.

What makes you think that private keys are being sent anywhere? This app uses a slightly modified version of the Signal protocol (because of course it does), as they describe here, section 27, page 90. Only public keys should ever leave your device, otherwise no amount of showing the code would make it secure. That’s the whole point.

Again, with the client code you should be able to tell that the keys are generated there and not sent anywhere.

As I said, with any app, just because they publish some server code does not mean that that’s what they’re running on their server - for security you have to be sure that the app is sufficiently secure on its own. Even if they were running the exact public code that “didn’t save the keys” the server could harvest them from memory.

You’ve misunderstood. With the client code you can be sure that your messages are properly encrypted before leaving the device. If that’s done correctly, you don’t need to trust the server, because it can’t read your messages just like some attacker couldn’t. Signal is pretty similar, they didn’t update the public server source for a few years, and even with the source, we can’t know that that is what they’re actually running. But with a verified build of the client code we can know that our messages are encrypted such that, even if they held on to them until quantum computers became mainstream, they’d still be properly protected.

Only the client. Though that’s probably enough to make sure messages leave your device suitably encrypted. Depending on the algos it could be quite vulnerable to hndl attacks, though, or (less likely) any undiscovered backdoors in the implementations. Of course, even for Signal one has to trust they’re using the public server code anyway, but at least we know they’re folding in a quantum-resistant algo.

You don’t understand why people might more frequently discuss the actions of someone with enormous power and influence, than they would those of Darryl from high school?

Ok, but not every random asshole is the richest guy in the world…

when usually the purpose of a question like that is more like “what was the result when you talked to them?”

But then say that? There’s a clear distinction in tone between those two wordings, even if they express similar thoughts.

Yeah, it is also just a philosophy word. But antisemites use it to refer to “dialectical materialism”, which is a real term for Marxist philosophy, but by which they mean “cultural Marxism”, a thing they made up by which they in turn mean “the Jews are going to impose communism on us through psyops that convince us it is good, so we have to exterminate them.”

Basically, like much of their coded language, it is a reference to a conspiracy theory.

I don’t think that’s right, context matters. It spreads when it is shared uncritically and people come across it in a context where they don’t have their guard up. I believe it is preventative, to some extent, the other way around, when it is shared in a context ripping it to shreds.

People will come across antisemitism in the wild, and it is important that they learn to recognise it. This quote is pretty extreme, but it is important that people know that antisemites use words like e.g. “dialectical” as a dog whistle. The next time they hear someone say something about it when one of their facebook friends share something they might notice that they talk about “Hollywood elites” or whatever in the same way.

Without a good understanding of how antisemitism works we are all susceptible.

Correction: they have spent some fraction of 73M on propaganda, and likely embezzled the rest.

I used to have a similar stereotype about (white) South Africans who I met in my country. However, after having spent some time there recently I can say that South Africans (of all ethnicities) are absolutely lovely people. I was really impressed with what an integrated and truly multicultural society they have less than thirty years after the end of apartheid. I realise there are still big problems but it left a big impact nonetheless.

My hypothesis is that all the shittiest people left when apartheid was ending because they didn’t like black people having human rights, and fled to majority-white countries.

There is, but they all come under the umbrella of polyamory. There’s lots of sub categories like “parallel” (where someone’s partners don’t have much or any contact with each other), “kitchen table” where they’re not in a relationship but do talk a lot about scheduling etc, might be friends, and then where everyone is in the same relationship or has independent relationships between everyone in a group. But lots of people use lots of different terms for those things.

Then your understanding of these terms is wrong. Polyamory refers to people having multiple relationships (consensually), that’s it.

Funny, I can easily do that and assumed everyone could

Just to add to this, the name for this logical error is “affirming the consequent”.

It’s a settlement. The amount of money is not that small, but it ends the investigation into whether drivers should be classified as employees rather than contractors. As the article states, their stock prices soared after this, that tells you everything you need to know.

It would be $1,200 though