The phone number link means forward security isn’t possible. If ever the encryption is hacked, all your messages could be forfeit by anyone who’s simply kept the encrypted data.

Can you elaborate on that? Obviously the phone number has privacy implications, but I don’t think it can be used to decrypt messages. In the signal protocol, encryption keys are exchanged using ECDH (so wiretapping doesn’t work) and periodically rotated (so even knowing the encryption keys at a certain point doesn’t let you decrypt messages after that).

As long as it’s not an exit node, nobody will be able to tell what the traffic is. It’s all encrypted including the metadata.

Because it was never about the deficit, you dummies. It’s a convenient lie to settle personal grievances and dismantle the regulators that are going after Trump and his crime partners. https://pluralistic.net/2025/01/27/beltway-bandits/#henhouse-foxes

Did you know you can criticize people without making weird conjectures about their sex life?

I think they mean uPnP

The military industrial complex

Are you free tonight? Because I don’t have any money.

Turns out when Zuckerbot was talking about “allowing more speech on the platform”, he just meant more slurs.

How does that increase the risk compared to something like JBOD or overlayfs? In both cases you will lose data if a drive fails. Keep in mind that this is btrfs raid0, not regular raid. If anything that decreases the chance of corruption because the metadata is redundantly stored on both drives.

No mention of systemd? This is unacceptable.

A disk failure will cause you to lose data, yes. But that’s also the case in all the other solutions discussed here. Backups should be handled separately and are not part of the original question.

Have you considered simply setting btrfs to RAID 0?

I get your point and I certainly don’t trust some media to give me all the facts. But there are still plenty of outlets who would have published about this if it happened at any systemic level. That’s as close as you can get to proving a negative.

There are many other bigoted things that Trump did do. We should probably discuss that, instead of panickingly telling people to stop changing their registered gender. That’s terrible advice given the very limited evidence.

I appreciate the question, but this is actually quite different from what is claimed in the screenshot.

The state department will stop changing the gender registration on new passports to “X”, at least for now. This doesn’t cause anyone to lose their documents. It also doesn’t affect anyone changing their registration with the state or local government, which is much more important.

There are many reasons to be frightened. It just doesn’t help to add fictional stories (or at best secondhand anecdotes) to that. Resistance against oppression requires accurate information about what happens, not wild speculation about things that “could have happened”.

Telling everyone to stop changing their gender registration is wild and would warrant for more evidence than “I heard from a friend”. That’s terrible advice and you can’t just shrug that off by saying you don’t know the truth.

If this was real it would have affected thousands of people and enough media outlets would have picked it up. This social media post isn’t even first hand experience, it’s what they allegedly heard from someone else.

Stop issuing “x” passports isn’t the same as confiscating existing documents, let alone for everyone who requests any change (as this post claims). Also this only applies to the federal government.

I’m disappointed that you’re so indifferent about the truth. Leaving this misinformation to spread does real damage to trans people, who might now become too afraid to change their gender marker. Even when, as many have pointed out, there was no change of policy and this is mostly handled at the state level.

“May be on shaky legal ground”

The law clearly states that Tiktok is banned and should be made inaccessible. The president cannot unilaterally change the law. They even got a lawyer to explain this to them.

Regardless of what you think of the ban, there can be no doubt about the fact that this is what the law says. No matter what Trump claims. If journalists show this level of misregard for truth and the rule of law, things are going to become much worse.

The fight for privacy and digital freedom is inherently political.