Organic mentions Open Source, but I just saw that FDroid mentions the following: "This app contains non open source components - compiled binary data files (including but not limited to .mwm map files) under a non FLOSS license"
Anyone has context on the following not hidden over Git-* issues (I was left thoroughly confused trying to understand it)?
There are several factors at play making conflicts almost impossible:
- A central device can be immediately synced to. For Nextcloud, it could be a server, for direct synchronization that I use (Syncthing), my phone (almost always online) is the intermediate device for all.
- You are usually online when creating accounts/password, so an sync can happen directly after a change
- And finally: How often do you actually _create_ accounts rather than just read the database? And how often do you do it on two devices in quick succession?
A slight factor differentiating security systems here is involved to the advantage of defenders: Attackers have to find a whole exploit chain, while defenders only need to fix one part of it.
Hoping there is already a migration plan. Fortunately many modern tools make it easy to switch to PQ, maybe someone knows which stack HN is running and if it would be possible.
Yes, it is indeed not always clear what constitutes forgery (Germany).
> A document in the classic sense requires an embodied declaration of intent that identifies an issuer and is suitable for providing proof in legal transactions. In the case of a lawyer's letter, the signature is an essential part of the standard repertoire of authenticity.
So removing some parts to make it _could_ make it safe, to Not create a "risk of confusion":
> Even if computer processing creates the appearance of a genuine document, the typical characteristics of the original must be present to establish a serious risk of confusion. Likewise, the BayObLG did not consider the offense of forging evidential data according to Section 269 of the German Criminal Code (StGB) to be fulfilled.
The donation is more or less virtue signaling rather than actual insight.
The problem can not be helped by research research against cybercrime. Proper practices for protections are well established and known, they just need to be implemented.
The amount donated should've rather be invested into better protections / hiring a person responsible in the company.
(Context: The hack happened on a not properly decomissioned legacy system.)
This is certainly missing some kind of legend explaining the colors of the lines, and what data is actually shown.
Is "red" high or low velocity?
And as an example, I do not understand what the "Boeing vs. Airbus" selection is trying to represent, as well as how "Altitude & Velocity" are supposed to be displayed at the same time.
Project certainly requires a bit more care if any discussion should happen around it.
I find it rather strange that so many email providers have to develop their own "app".
There are so many good clients out there, and I'd rather have 1. The team focus on their core offering, and 2. the existing email client is for the same reason (limited developer time, and matureness) a much better choice for security
Immutable as in the message won't be altered/deleted by the sender. This is. This is about user control, as opposed to chat apps or social media, where posts are frequently edited, get taken down after an outrage or links can disappear to link-rot.
From article: "An email is your copy, and the sender can’t revise it later."
I assume, since the statement specifically mentions CERTIFIED devices, that they do intend to further develop the app.
As always with Google policies, this means users will need to jump through more and more hoops (as today with custom ROMs and banking apps already).
I really hope first and foremost that this policy can be reverted, and if not, that the community develops means of technological circumvention (examples mentioned by others include an "app runner" app or letting others identify the app).
It is a sad state the Android ecosystem is heading to.
So true.
In such an LLM-driven game though, I would imagine the player would just ask the NPC: "I forgot what to do" or even "Can you explain it in other terms?" (if the quest description isn't clear enough).
Anyone has context on the following not hidden over Git-* issues (I was left thoroughly confused trying to understand it)?