The people screaming the loudest about how signal is bad for x reason always seem to be the ones recommending y(usually matrix) that suffers the same issue.
> Unless they started commanding to destroy samples, and sharing sequences of captured bats after the pandemic started.
Which is exactly what they started doing back in February (2020). The two labs in Wuhan were ordered to destroy all samples they had. So even if the theory were to turn out to be the most likely origin, we'd have no way to find out for sure.
> She also said that since it had been designed by the company’s outside legal counsel and approved by their auditors, it was fully compliant with the law.
Why would she serve jail time if legal counsel told her that it was legal?
But that would simply mean that the lawyer is culpable for the criminal charges since it's their responsibility to know the law and ensure that their recommendations comply with the law. I think it's odd that she's punished despite having sufficient basis to believe that what she was doing was legal. Especially in a system where the laws in some areas are so complex that there's no way to figure out what's legal or not without being an expert in the field/topic.
If you can't figure out if something is legal and if you go to an expert and they can't figure it out (or they're lying through their teeth), and you get punished for it, I feel like something is broken there.
That said, maybe she did know it wasn't legal, but we don't have enough information about the case to draw any conclusions from it.
When I used to work at a bulge bracket investment bank as a trader, if a sticky situation was on the horizon or we wanted to get aggressive structuring something, my bosses would call up some white shoe law firm/big4 accountant for a regulatory/tax opinion, if the opinion was negative it would get tossed and the next firm down the list would get a call until a favorable opinion was found. This was coordinated by internal counsel and standard practice. These opinions did occasionally get tested in litigation or asked for during audits by regulators, as far as I know they all stood up or were never queried further. This form of 'opinion arbitrage' is very common in high finance...
> But that would simply mean that the lawyer is culpable for the criminal charges since it's their responsibility to know the law and ensure that their recommendations comply with the law.
It would if giving inaccurate was a criminal offense, but it isn't.
So you put this as a question but there is an implicit statement that "you consider this broken". That statement is from you though and not me. I don't seem to be a part of that conversation.
It's relevant because that's the whole point of my original comment. If you want to ignore that, fine, but it's sort of disgusting how people are so eager to defend the law because it's the law, not because of any inherent morality.
I always felt the discussion being focused on the platform tax to be a distraction. Sure, now app developers make more. Great. Doesn't change how unresponsive or draconian Google (and Apple) is in when they decide you aren't allowed to be on their Play Store anymore. Or how arbitrarily they choose to enforce their rules.
Something which is inevitable. It's hard to turn back the clock on something like this and I don't see any obvious solution for it, which is why both companies need to be regulated heavily to ensure they treat app developers fairly. If they're going to monopolize their own platforms, then whoever wants to sell on that platform needs to have guarantees that they aren't arbitrarily banned and that they have sane avenues to dispute any conflicts with Google or Apple. This is what regulation is for, to ensure fair marketplaces.
Agreed, and it's not just app developers that would benefit from regulation, it's also billions of users. Consumers will benefit greatly from the increased efficiencies and lowered costs that real competition in the app distribution market will bring.
That's quite the lengthy article. Interesting topic though. I recently stumbled over the Astray podcast (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/astray/id1552069504) which is also a decent look at the psychological risks (and maybe easier to consume than a 6000 word essay).
It's in fact the shortest article I ever read - 0 words after the headline. Unless I refresh the site and manage to read the text within the split second it appears before it rapidly zooms beyond the website's borders.
Is this an exercise in focus and meditation? Do I have to register like some of the few visible parts of the page suggest? I don't know, but after reflecting on it I don't think I care enough about horrible web design to bother with it.
But ... the video isn't for a general audience. He doesn't have any reason to apologize to a general audience. His customers are the only people that matter in this situation and this video is for them.
Is the status page relevant though? At the very least, OVH immediately made a status announcement on their support page and they've been active on Twitter. I don't see anything shady here. From their support page:
> The whole site has been isolated, which impacts all our services on SBG1, SBG2, SBG3 and SBG4. If your production is in Strasbourg, we recommend to activate your Disaster Recovery Plan
What's the point of a status page then if it does not show you the status? I don't want to be chasing down twitter handles and support pages during an outage.
Agree here. Matrix servers log everything by default. If somebody cares about protecting metadata, I don't know why they'd choose Matrix over Signal.