The point was:
This is a discussion about Signal, not Telegram.
But by now we have gotten pretty used to deflecting every discussion about "is Signal secure" to "look behind you, a three headed monkey" or rather to "but telegram is not secure, because all Russians are stupid".
"I compile and run Signal from the sources..."
Yes, so you get a messaging app that might be secure, while 99.999% of users use the one from the store which very likely comes from a completely different source.
"The original whitepaper"
Just use you favourite search engine, we have been over this dozens of times by now.
If you understand security I would start here: https://cs.nyu.edu/~afb383/publication/uc_signal/uc_signal.p...
If not -- it probably takes 15-25 years to teach you.
Very rough, and simplified:
"Double Ratchet has some very strong preconditions which have never been addressed by signal, and probably never been implemented by anybody." (Please, don't quote me on that, it's very dumbed down.)
And none of that code can be converted to something that is even close to the published app.
They might as well just release the source code for the firmware of a fridge.
We do know that signal is lying:
- About it's code being open source
- About it's protocol being open
- About it's funding
- About it's massive white washing campaigns in forums
- About smear campaigns against and harassment of journalists who dare to look into them
We do know that signal is probably insecure if(!)
- It is actually based on the original white paper
- It is actually using any of the code they released ages ago
There have been major security incidents with apps using the signal protocol,
e.g. WhatsApp.
Who is the one doing the astroturfing?
You might not like the facts, but that doesn't change them.
Funny how "journalists" who spend their day in a text editor, or at least should,
keep saying that 8GB is not enough,
while award winning AAA game developers are fully ok with 8GB.
Yes, 16GB (or currently 18GB) is nice,
but it only means I can leave chrome & slack open forever;
And has no impact on my actual work whatsoever.
ML is quite ok at answering questions,
but it is very bad at asking the right questions.
Engineering is about asking questions.
Looks like we are at least 50 years out from "AI" replacing entry level engineers.
I'll let me grand children worry about that,
and use this glorified auto completion until then.
It's nice at implementing simple stuff at a first semester CS student,
after somebody over specified it,
but that's it.
Code monkeys might want to start looking for a new job in 10-20 years,
but you asked about SWEs. And less than 1-10% of our job is to actually type code.
120 if no major break throughs happen.
150-180 otherwise.
Ignoring fatal accidents.
The average life span of males in my family is 98. Heavily brought down by two accidents (38 & 17). No naturals deaths below 104. I guess genetics are in my favour.
I am saying 90K+ for seniors is what I have seen, and 60K+ for juniors.
"Normal" is a bit hard to define, and there will always be wide deviations,
but the averages, and ranges in that doc just don't match my numbers.
Written offers I got in the last 3 years:
M$ - 140K.
IBM 120K, 160K & 180K.
Amazon 150K
Google 80K & 250K (yes, I know :eyeroll:)
All their salary bands are public.
A lot of the smaller companies pay extremely well too.
And no, not going to give out names, as they are swamped in CVs already.
I am currently at 120K, for 20h per week (2days/3days alternating).
Currently hiring for a small startup,
and everybody I interviewed asked for 100K+, and that is with shares on top.
Background:
I've been a IT hiring manager for 20+ years now,
with about 600 hires (and salary negotiations) in total.
About 70% gamedev related, and the other 30% classic IT.
I have tracked all those numbers over the last 20 years.
They are 50-100% higher across the board; And that is base salary on-hire, without bonuses.
A senior developer for 60K?
Show me, and I'll hire 10. Make that 20. On the spot.
Last year I hired a graduate in Bulgaria for 80K/year base(!) salary.
Granted, he was the best of his year, and had some nice side projects.
According to your numbers I should not exist.
I started my career in the 90s, and never earned below 60K/year.
I suspect something might be off with your sample selection.
Or maybe people are just under reporting their numbers.
Not saying you are intentionally misleading, but these numbers just don't compute.