I have two questions:

1. Does Radicle also work over TOR? 2. Does Radicle support Git LFS and/or Git Annex?

1. yes, it's in the user guide [1] 2. Git LFS should work, yes. Care to try and report back ? ;) Open a new topic on the Zulip #Support channel [2] if you run into any issues.

[1] - https://radicle.dev/guides/user#4-embracing-the-onion [2] - https://radicle.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/369873-Support

Regarding 2, we're actively working on radicle-artifact as an alternative to Git LFS with transport agnostic distribution (https/p2p), attestations, and redactions.

https://radicle.network/nodes/iris.radicle.network/rad%3Az4V...

you are free to provide patches instead of bitching.

And Debian is able to offer me a few million dollars yearly to help fix their security situation.

the idea that debian has a few million dollars to spare creates the assumption, that even if they would have... you would either not know how to fix issues, or not worth it.

newcomers will always have it much easier. also guix i think also reached this.

also, stagex and others probably profited QUITE A LOT from the debian efforts, because they started to go upstream and talking to developers..

just arch linux profited from debian maintainers a decade before that an debian people asking upstream to improve...

Guix did a full source bootstrap first, credit where well due, but it does not apply to their whole tree. E.g haskell is bootstrapped with a binary, qemu includes binary firmware blobs, etc.

Guix is not fully bootstrapped or reproducible.

To your point though, the incomplete efforts of many other distros absolutely accelerated us.

that depends though, which channel you choose. And their efforts for stage0 and such also increased the possibility for all.

Yay for Free software and Opensource! we all benefit! :)

"mimimimi".

Those people do not care about quality in opensource at all. For longliving software this is very important.

Of course, all those javascript and kubernetes packages which are irrelevant in a few years again, might complain, but let them complain.

> What will we end up with? Only attested modems / endpoints in the home?

you might laugh/cry, but there was a time in germany, when the telephone at home was owned by the state (the "Post") and you were NOT allowed to tinker with it.

personally, i guess, things like sneakernet, lorawan and hamradio will become a lot more popular over time.

Same for the US- until the feds broke up Bell between 1974 and 82. but, there were no technical hurdles. Anybody have a toy whistle?

My understanding is that the phone company owned the phone, not the state.

In many countries the state owned the phone company.

If there is only 1 telephone company, either owned by the state, directly or indirectly, or even just a monopoly... what is the difference?

And who gets to tell the phone company how to operate?

We try and segment it into governments and corporations. But really there is no real differences between the two. They are all governing policies for groups of people arranged in a sort of heirical pattern. The big top level group, the one that managed to gain control of physical territory is the nation-state or perhaps more accurately the Government(capital G) of which. allocating control to various lesser groups. Including physical sub territories and for profit enterprises (The incorporation).

The point being, even in the most rampant capitalist[1](an economic policy favoring freedom of operation in it's sub groups) nation the for profit enterprises are licensed and regulated and if needed(see world war 2) controlled by the state.

1. As opposed to communism, an economic policy favoring fairness of operation in it's sub groups. Or fascism, an economic policy where no one knows what it is but every one agrees is bad. fascism really is hard to pin down, used as the default bogey man by everybody, but original Italian theory suggests it favors having the most successful sub groups run the state, which would be in the capitalist corner. however the largest wielders of the theory(1930's Germany) used it as a social fairness issue, which is in the communism domain.

Doesn’t ham radio not allow transmissions to be encrypted by law? That rules out most of the internet.

That is true. They can be authenticated, though. I don't think it should be read as ham radio specifically, but (illegal, pirate) amateur use of radio more generally.

Same in NL... we used to rent our telephones from the "PTT".

My pet theory is that network protocols will evolve to require some kind of certificate-based signing to uniquely identify individuals and groups. Hardware and operating systems will have legal mandates to enforce this. Penalties for carrying unsigned traffic will be stiff.

The “upsides” will be plentiful! User verification schemes will be streamlined like never before. If you think there are downsides… well, just think of the kids, damn it!

You probably pay for tests and that the company has to be audited for medical diagnostics standards

> Couldn't NSA have not known about an issue with ML-KEM, and thus wanted to prevent its commercial acceptance, which it did simply by approving the algorithm?

Could, but they did not do that. So, the question is to be stated: Why?

I think you may have missed my point.

i would not use html(5). XHTML? perhaps. but try to find 3 parsers, which parse html in the same way and not segfaulting.

It's not possible. HTML is worse. You need at least something, which on parsing does not segfault.

i never understood why the markdown mime type was not used in emailclients in webclients or desktop programs...

that would eliminate most html usage and enable longer texts than 70-85 characters per line.

It’s up to the e-mail client implementors, but I would personally prefer text/enriched, RFC 1896, instead of markdown.