Bravo!

Tsk, everyone knows you shouldn’t use magnets to hold floppy disks. Just staple them into your lever arch file.

Maybe it’s just a different viewpoint, but I find the sarcasm of that headline vastly more damning than just saying ‘Trump lies again’. It basically saying that his brain is so fried that he’s unable or unwilling to engage with the reality the rest of us experience.

Not morons, just not educated enough about them to understand exactly what the implications of that action are.

Wait, it purged the entire ecosystem except trout, so what are the trout eating? Don’t tell me we now have nuclear powered fish, the implications are terrifying. What happens if you’re bitten by a radioactive trout? Do we get troutman, the superhero we neither want, need or deserve?

Don’t go cold turkey, but if you reduce your intake slowly you can probably wean yourself off of it.

(Please don’t do this)

I agree that them having users’ phone numbers isn’t ideal. There are other identifiers they could use that would work just as well. However, both the client and server are open source, so you can build, at least the client, yourself. If you can content yourself that it does not leak your ID when sending messages, then you don’t need to trust the server as it does not have the information to build a graph of your contacts. Sealed sender seems to have been announced in 2018, so it’s had time to be tested.

Don’t get me wrong, the fact they require a phone number at all is a huge concern, and the reason I don’t really use it much, but the concern you initially stated was addressed years ago and you can build the client yourself to validate that.

You’re correct that if you use the system the way it used to work they can trivially build that connection, but (and I know this is a big assumption) if it does now work the way they say it does, they do not have the information to do that any more as the client doesn’t actually authenticate to the server to send a message. Yes, with some network tracing they could probably still work out that you’re the same client that did login to read messages, and that’s a certainly a concern. I would prefer to see a messaging app that uses cryptographic keys as the only identifiers, and uses different keys for different contact pairs, but given their general architecture it seems they’ve tried to deal with the issue.

Assuming that you want to use a publicly accessible messaging app, do you have any ideas about how it should be architected? The biggest issue I see is that the client runs on your phone, and unless you’ve compiled it yourself, you can’t know what it’s actually doing.

Strictly you’re having to trust the build of the client rather than the people running the server. If the client doesn’t send/leak the information to the server, the people running the server can’t do anything with it. It’s definitely still a concern, and, if I’m going to use a hosted messaging app, I’d much rather see the client built and published by a different group, and ideally compile it myself. Apart from that I’m not sure there’s any way to satisfy your concerns without building and running the server and client yourself.

‘Sealed sender’ seems to avoid this by not actually requiring the client to authenticate to the server at all, and relying on the recipient to validate that it’s signed by the sender they expect from the encrypted data in the envelope. As I mentioned in another reply, I’m just going on what they’ve published on the system, so either I could be completely wrong, or they could be being misleading, but it does look like they’ve tried to address this issue.

Whilst I absolutely agree it’s correct to be skeptical about it, the ‘sealed sender’ process means they don’t actually know which account sent the message, just which account it should be delivered to. Your client doesn’t even authenticate to send the message.

Now, I’m just going on what they’ve published on the system, so either I could be completely wrong, or they could be being misleading, but it does look like they’ve tried to address the very issue you’ve been pointing out. Obviously it’d be better if they didn’t have your phone number at all, but this does seem to decouple it in a way that means they can’t build a connection graph.

With ‘sealed sender’ your phone number, or any other identifying information, is not included in the metadata on the envelope, only the recipient’s id is visible, and it’s up to the recipient’s client to validate the sender information that is inside the encrypted envelope. It looks like a step in the right direction, though I don’t use signal enough to have looked into auditing it myself.

Use cheap, low density wax and it’ll slowly melt under the studio lights over to course of the program, which would be hilarious.

That only works if you can get everyone to stop talking about them. Unfortunately, he has a large enough cult that someone will always be talking about him positively, so the only reasonable counter is to flood the conversation with mockery. Against a more well balanced candidate that would just rankle, but it’s really got under his skin, and under the skin of those who support him, so it’s proving to be a worthwhile tactic.

Very well said. The key question is how do we, as a society, turn politics back onto that course, of considering the what and the how, not the person or the party.

The problem is more widespread than just America, it seems to take root anywhere you have an elected representative system and the electorate forget that they are the key part of the system.

How’s he doing? Well, he’s been up and down.

Look, I’m not attacking them over this, as you rightly said, it has plenty of other drawbacks and concerns, I’m just emphasising that Google do have a large degree of influence over them. For instance, Chromium is dropping manifest v2 support, so Brave pretty much has to do the same. They’ve said that, as Chromium has a switch to keep it enabled until June (iirc) they’ve enabled that, but after Chromium drops manifest v2 the most they can do is try to support a subset of it as best they can. The Brave devs may not want to drop support, but Google have decreed it will be dropped, so they end up dropping it and having to put in extra work to keep even a subset working for some period of time.

If Brave gets even a moderate market share, Google will continue to mess them around like this as they really don’t like people not seeing their adverts.

Ultimately it’s software, so the Brave devs can do pretty much whatever they want, limited by the available time and money. Google’s influence extends to making that either easier or harder, it much the same way as they influence the Android ecosystem.

They seem to have two levels of furniture; the flimsy, mostly made of particle board/cardboard and hope stuff, and the solid wood stuff. The latter is as robust any anything you’ll get elsewhere, even assembled, just easier to get home and takes some assembly. I suspect it’s mostly that that lasts, although even the lightweight stuff holds up well if you’re carefully with it.

Both Brave and Chrome are built on the open-source Chromium browser engine

That’s from the Brave website: https://brave.com/compare/chrome-vs-brave/

Yes there are plenty of changes, but it’s built on it, and shaped by it, and Chromium is heavily influenced by Google. If chromium doesn’t support v2 manifests it is unlikely that Brave will. In this particular case it may be that Brave’s ad blocking and privacy features are equivalent to uBO, but it’s still underpinned by an engine that Google has strong influence over, so it can’t completely shake their influence.

While I agree with most people here that finding a keyboard and screen would be the easiest option, you do have a couple of other options:

• Use a preseed file A preseed lets the installer run completely automatically, without user intervention. Get it to install a basic system with SSH and take it from there. You’ll want to test the install in a VM, where you can see what’s going on before letting it run on the real server. More information here: https://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstaller/Preseed

• Boot from a live image with SSH Take a look at https://wiki.debian.org/LiveCD in particular ‘Debian Live’. It looks like ssh is included, but you’d want to check the service comes up on boot. You can then SSH to the machine and install to the harddrive that way. Again, test on a VM until you know you have the image working, and know how to run the install, then write it to a USB key and boot the tsrget server from that.

This all assumes the target server has USB or CD at the top of its boot order. If it doesn’t you’ll have to change that first, either with a keyboard and screen, or via a remote management interface sych as IPMI.