I've been annoyed and suspicious since they stopped being TextSecure and dropped support for SMS messages, and still don't buy the reasons given.

It started as offering opportunistic end-to-end encryption on "direct" (SMS) communications to help privacy. It didn't even need a data connection. People bought into it and as an Android user it was good [1]. Data then got added. First boiling frogs to the side, and then SMS support was removed completely, for what I still think are disingenuous reasons (see [1]), and the summary of it's technically impossible and not worth it. Trust us.

So what did we get? Well instead of leaking metadata to my phone provider, I'm now sending even more metadata to signal. They've put themselves in the path of every kex, every message, every group chat, every call, every read-recipt. Moxie Marlinspike is my new Santa; he knows when I'm sleeping and he knows when I'm awake.

And for something sold as privacy, what the heck is with their Linkedin-be-proud dark pattern of convincing people to upload their contacts (it's safe - honest!), or announcing proudly that "contact I haven't spoken to in 15 years and for good reason" has joined signal! Would I like to connect with the person I was really hoping had forgot I existed and was only saving the number so I could make sure I never answered it? Yes please - and I hope you told them that as well - FML... I'm also suspicious about the encrypted cloud backups, but that might just be me.

They also spent years making it difficult for people on de-googled phones, or to use it on desktop, or to run their own servers, or to run custom clients which seemed at odds with encrypt-all-the-things.

I should be happy about the mass adoption of the encryption protocol. I should see WhatsApp adopting it just before they got bought out by Facebook as a win for privacy for the common folk. I should trust it more now that there's so many eyes on it. I should be in no way suspicious of the lack serious objection the lack of LA provision by the authorities, or the fact Spy-on-You INC would continue buying the messaging platform they can no longer look at.

Things have felt off for a while and I wouldn't be shocked to see it on a future list alongside EncroChat, or Sky ECC, or Exclu or maybe even ANOM - a honeypot from the start. I can't prove anything, and don't know anything, but it sets _all_ of my "there's something wrong and I don't know what it is" senses tingling. But also I'm pretty bad at feelings. Maybe I just need to wee, or drink more water. My gut feel still insists there's a pattern to my RSA dongle's one time codes, so really you shouldn't believe a single word I've said.

[1] There were issues. iirc it didn't work on Apple devices, sms is bad for images and group chats, it broke in a messy but easily bypassed (& fixable) way and it would never work for calls. It also still leaked metadata to the phone network. And SMS is just fundamentally dead and costly - but it absolutely served a purpose.

I had chronic insomnia for >25 years (my entire life) making it extremely difficult to hold down a job or generally interact with society. I've since been on Mirtazipine for about 15 years and the difference is unbelievable.

In the UK it's only dispensed in 15, 30 or 45mg. I was started on 15mg but that left me extremely groggy for most of the next day. My doctor convinced me to move up to 30mg and I'm able to mostly sleep and actually function the next day.

It's not all roses and there's a handful of side effects. Personally I had about 6 months of metallic taste in my mouth and it absolutely buggered my sex drive. A few friends jokingly call it "mirfatapine" as it can make them binge-eat and put on weight, but personally I find the good absolutely outweighs the bad and it's literally life changing.

I know if I forget to take it, because I suddenly realise it's 4am and I'm still wide awake and gibbering. If I'm working festivals then I can _choose_ not to take it and go back to my old routine working 52-hour shifts before falling asleep.

Whilst I'm not overly thrilled at taking psychoactive drugs nightly, it's been the only thing I've ever found (and I spent a lot of my childhood trying anything and everything the doctors recommended and self-medicating in various forms) that actually makes it possible to sleep nightly, and therefore function long term when I'm forced to wake up for work. If you're desperate and out of options it's absolutely worth trying, but do be aware it takes months to become effective.

As I've not seen anyone else mention it, I feel the need to point out that Digital IMAX (which is the vast majority of screens and showings) maxes out at 4K.

Tim webber says it was rendered at 4k. Which contradicts what I remember. If he meant 4k textures that would make sense. 4k textures might have been why renderman kept on OOMing though and we had to tile the render even more.

Also I don't know how they printed it back out to film. It might have been sent to hollywood to laser/print out.

Droitwitch LW's antenna uses a T-aerial suspended between two 210m steel masts acting as massive capacitive top-loaded vertical monopole. The signal isn't beamed or shaped, it propagates omnidirectionally and this style of antenna offers _0 dB_ of ERP increase.

Even worse, they're transmitting AM, so the power output dynamically increases with the volume of the analogue audio being transmitted. If you cut off the input to Droitwitch, it'd still be putting out a 500kW carrier wave. When audio is applied the amplitude of the carrier is modulated, so for peak loudness (someone shouting or the loudest spike in music) it can take an extra 50% power to create the upper and lower sidebands - at peak, the Vapotron tubes could be putting out a combined 750kW.

The amplification stage is only ~70% efficient as well, so at peak power it's possible that the site is pulling nearly 1MW from the grid.

--

Compared to a modern UHF DTV transmitter station the differences are wild. The big transmitter near me is putting out 6* DTV MUX's at 174kW ERP each, but that's through a 15dBd UHF array at the top of the mast which gives an obscene amount of gain.

- Mains draw at the wall ~150kW (including cooling and ancillary systems).

- Total TPO (RF energy leaving the cabs) from each of the six transmitters is only ~52kW combined (8.7kW each)

- Output of the combiners after losses of ~0.5dB is ~46kW. We can expect another ~1.5dB of attenuation after forcing it up 300m of waveguide to the top of the tower so we're now sat at a "mere" ~33kW of RF energy going into the bottom of our antenna.

- 33kW with a +15dBd gain gets us to an ERP from the antenna of 1.044 MW.

--------------

Note: Numbers compiled from public sources. All mistakes and misunderstandings are mine. Whilst I do work in a tangentially related industry this is completely out of my area of expertise - in the same way that working as a cleaner at an aeroplane does not mean one knows how to fly or maintain a plane.

Some people save energy by turning their appliances off at the plug rather than leaving them on standby. Clearly Radio 4 chose to avoid having Brian Blessed on too frequently instead ;)

My suspicion is that this means an exciter and a stack of amps per service, which then go through a two stage combiner and out to the antenna. There might even be a pair of exciters and amps per service depending on redundancy.

The combiners (certainly for FM/DAB/TV services) also cause cumulative attenuation as the signal gets combined each time, so even if all 3 are radiating at the same power, the first in the chain might need twice as much amplification to make up for losses.

edit: MB21 (of course) has some fantastic technical info about Droitwitch: https://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/gallerypage.php?txid=1454&page... and there's some great pics here, too: https://www.radiorewind.co.uk/radio1/droitwich.htm

I believe they're still using a pair of Marconi B6042 transmitters (250kW each, in parallel) to provide at least one of the services.

I was very much getting myself confused with some of their other transmission sites where they take multiple DAB or DTV services, modulate, amplify and combine them and then broadcast through the same antenna.

If we pick an extremely fast orbit, then relativity means the hardware will age out (slightly) slower, so I'm sure that'll help with the maintenance issue.

It's the wrong way around though. Ideally we want to speed up our current compute ability not slow it down; if it experiences more time than we do then it can do more. Relative-MHz means my slower hardware becomes tangibly fast again.

General Relativity says mass warps space time, so we need to get these datacentres out of the Earth's gravity well. And the Sun's, and the Milky Way's; out into the deepest void of intergalactic space. The good news is that a maintenance callout is still quicker than some of the earth based DC's I've had gear in, but the bad news is that it doesn't get us much of anything at all.

Special Relativity lets us abuse time with speed (something I discovered as a teenager). Going faster than Earth means we experience less time, so we just need to try and slow down comparative to our home base. The earth is orbiting the Sun at ~30km/s, the solar system is orbiting the centre of the Milky Way at ~230km/s and our local group of galaxies is moving relative to the Cosmic Microwave Background at ~600km/s. We can easily get our DataSpaceCentre up to 1,000km/s or more, so we just need to point it relative to all that movement we mentioned above making stationary relative to the universe. It's completely doable, but (as well as far more variable response times to callouts) only gets us an extra second of compute over a human lifetime.

Fundamentally, we're attacking this problem in the wrong direction. Earth's gravity is comparatively minor, and our piddly ~600km/s relative movement is a tiny fraction of the speed of light. We should be filling The Earth with compute, and then decamping humanity into space and travelling at relativistic speeds. Or put the compute in space and move the Earth into the event horizon of a black hole. You can't do the inverse of Interstellar keeping Earth where it is, the maths isn't in our favour. If everyone lived on (a less moist) Miller's Planet, we'd get 7 years of compute every hour. It puts Moore's Law to shame; the relative MHz are obscene.

There's the obvious problem of communications. I'm led to believe there's issues with radio and light, so this probably isn't a job for fibre. Veritasium seemed to imply a battery, switch, lightbulb and a wire stretching around the globe would light instantaneously, so I'm sure we can come up with a new copper Ethernet standard for low latency over solar distances.

Invest early, we're going straight past the moon!

This has absolutely nothing to do with burner phones and the proposed changes won't do anything to change that.

~5 years ago there was a big push (in the USA) to try and solve it with STIR/SHAKEN but I've not been involved or paid attention since then, so don't know if anything came of it. It's a legitimately hard problem to solve though. Lots of engineering and backwards compatibility technical problems, but also political, logistical and commercial issues are abound. You've also got some turtle issues too; it's attestation all the way down.

That is not correct. There a phone farms operating purely on burner phones / disposable sims. Even for legit use cases, this path is often way easier/cheaper than go through official channels.

Use cases range from carrier-NAT proxies at < $1 per GB to text message spam.

A burner phone is a phone number whose owner is not officially registered somewhere as the owner.

A spoofed phone number is a false declaration that you're calling from number XXXXXXXXXX when in fact you're calling from YYYYYYYYYY.

You might notice that there is absolutely no relationship between these two ideas. You can be registered and lie about your phone number. You can be unregistered and not lie about your phone number.

>>> I think in general the ability to spoof numbers should be banned / controlled. Someone from India should not be allowed to call me with a caller ID from Mayo Clinic.

>> This has absolutely nothing to do with burner phones and the proposed changes won't do anything to change that.

> That is not correct. There a phone farms operating purely on burner phones

This is total nonsense. A phone farm that doesn't spoof caller ID isn't presenting false caller ID.

Sorry about that.

Except zvols present as real-live block devices that can do block-device things instead of regular-file things, and that's important for some stuff.

But AFAICT, iSCSI targets on Linux are not one of those things. They don't care; they work the ~same whether backed by files or block devices.

And on the performance benchmarks I find that compare performance of zvols-vs-files on ZFS, files usually win.

> Why use zvols?

Probably for the same reasons that people recommended separate disk partitions for /var, /usr, and such as was the case ~30 years ago when I got started with desktop *nix systems.

That reason seemed to boil down to: "If it was good for a Sun/3 in 1986, then it must also be good for a Linux box in 1996." It was a dumb reason.

tl;dr, folklore. :)

ext2 disk corruption, especially on power failure or a crash, was a common threat in the 1990s. Not merely to the point of requiring fsck and a bunch of orphaned files (which was inevitable on an unclean shutdown), but just totally fubar'd, requiring a reformat. The only thing worse was then trying to reinstall Slackware from the floppy disks, at least one of which had a better than even chance of corruption from just sitting in the drawer since the last reinstall, requiring another long night nursing a download over the 2400 baud modem.

I use OpenBSD, and while FFS2 has been far more robust than 1990s Linux ext2, smart partitioning is still warranted, not just for minimizing blast radius, but also for managing backups, etc. I haven't had the chance to use ZFS, and it might be the only filesystem I might consider skipping partitioning for on a workhorse system, but even if you trust the design and code quality of ZFS, it's running unprotected alongside a bunch of horribly buggy kernel subsystems and drivers, so....

It could get worse than reinstalling Slackware, again, from floppies. I didn't get to experience corrupted floppies; I instead had a habit of recycling my Slackware disksets for other purposes after the system was up and running. So any complete re-install started by booting up MS-DOS to run Telemate to start downloading them fresh from Sunsite...again.

But at least it was Telemate, so I could manage files to free up more floppy disks while this process slowly continued at [I guess I was fortunate] 9600 or 14.4kbps. ;)

I don't recall much difficulty with ext2 being fragile (though I can provide horror stories about OS/2's HPFS). If I had issues with it, they didn't leave any scars.

But I accept your correction. It may have been the case that splitting the filesystem into different partitions made sense because ext2 was fickle, and I was just very lucky in deliberately ignoring that advice after the first time I misjudged the partition sizes at install and ran out of space in some directory or other.

Hard drives seemed so small back then. Installing a real OS meant a serious tradeoff in the ratio between user data and system data.

---

Anyway, ZFS. The ZFS way is that it owns the whole disk -- for a long time, the preferred method didn't even use partitions at all. Nowadays OpenZFS does create one partition for itself by default, but it uses the whole disk just the same.

Blast radius is limited by having different datasets (think "filesystem-light"), and read-only snapshots, and easy, consistent backups (if you have a compatible device or service to send them to -- otherwise, it's ~the same backup dance as any other filesystem with snapshots).

It's a different way of doing things, like a subsystem in and of itself. It keeps its own caches and generally wants to be as close to the metal as it can be. Which sounds scary, but meh: Almost everything worth doing gets done with two commands, zfs and zpool, and the syntax has been consistent enough over the years that old documentation from Sun still has value.

I've been using it for most of a decade now and I find it to be ridiculously good. My only wish is that it could be a first-rate player on Linux, but license incompatibilities be that way sometimes.

- serving a bunch of storage as a blob is a common use case for e.g. iSCSI exporting, and so, if you want to be able to zfs snapshot/send/rollback/etc on the level of "one logical disk", it makes sense to have an optimized route to expose that rather than making you expose a filesystem that only has one file on it to do the same dance

- avoiding unnecessary overhead/complexity from the FS layer being involved when all you really care about is exposing a single block device of storage

Of course, in the era where you're sad that inline compression/checksum/etc are bottlenecking your 48 NVMe pool, that probably isn't where you'd reach for optimizing first...or second...

But just exposing the block storage is sufficiently useful that at least one of the original projects to port ZFS on Linux wasn't planning to implement the FS layer, they just wanted block storage for Lustre.

After all: Why would zvols exist at all if they weren't superior in important ways?

> it makes sense to have an optimized route to expose that rather than making you expose a filesystem that only has one file on it to do the same dance

It's important to note that additional datasets are essentially free on ZFS; it's no big deal to have lots of them (millions of millions of them is A-OK), and datasets don't have a pre-determined size like zvols do.

Although zvols can also be grown and shrunk, just as files [within datasets] can be.

Both datasets and zvols make the same kind of mess out of zfs list's unfiltered output.

But zvols introduce a new concept, while anyone who uses ZFS is already familiar with datasets that contain files.

I think this part is a wash, and that it comes down to operator preference.

> avoiding unnecessary overhead/complexity from the FS layer being involved when all you really care about is exposing a single block device of storage

Maybe? Again, the benchmarks I found (hours ago now and tabs long-closed; I'll find more if anyone insists) suggested that files were faster than zvols, which suggests reduced overhead. (It's very possible that the tests I found were naively implemented, but then: It's also possible for any of us to do something naive.)

Anyway, it's interesting to think about.

It seems like the right answer is to test with one's own workload and find the best fit, instead of assume that one way is better than the other.

For its part, ZFS should handle a zvol and a file-on-a-dataset with equal stoicism and reliability.

But that was the original logic.

I also would be curious to see benchmarks for them on FBSD and Linux, because FBSD and Linux (the platforms at large) diverged in how they handle "disks", with FBSD opting for only character devices (unbuffered) and Linux only block devices (buffered).

ZFS also lets you specify number of copies on a single disk. This sounds a bit weird, but as drives suffer block failures far more often than total failures, it's actually surprisingly useful in some situations.

[1] My suspicion is significantly, as storage sizes are now multiple orders of magnitude larger and errors per MB can't have scaled up linearly to match.

For anyone not in the know, Resolve has an exceptionally capable and feature rich free version. A lot of the AI features (and >4k editing) are locked to the Studio licence which is a one-time payment, but works simultaneously on two computers (including different OS's) and allows upgrades across major versions.

I spent less than $300 on it a decade ago and my licence works fine on new v21 released this week. My least-regretted software purchase in 3 decades.

It sucks, but I just can't justify their insane pricing scheme. I've been looking for Linux-capable tools for a while, and Darktable / Rawtherapee are a long way from what I'm after. What you describe sounds like a dream.

It's more like finding the subscription for a CAD program too expensive, and swapping to something more primitive instead. If that offends you, I think you gotta have a long hard look in a mirror some time.

FastRawViewer, DxO, Affinity, Darktable, Capture One. Those are just the ones I personally have installed. There's also RawTherapee, a number of camera OEM-specific tools, and more.

If Capture One still is like this, I wouldn't really be surprised if there's truth to the other comment here claiming that their current owners are trying to offload them.

And I'm sure this will all change when the new vulture capital fund that snaps it up tries to extract every last microcent of "value" from the brand.

I should also note I jumped ship to DxO as soon as C1 started going down the subscription hole. And frankly, I'm kind of glad they're struggling. I guess they thought they were going to replicate Adobe's "success" with subscriptions without first being a near-monopoly.

Please recommend these "powerful alternatives", because I have explored the space and found nothing that replaces Lightroom in a way that I find acceptable. Please omit Darktable and Rawtherapee as I've already evaluated those.

In their defense you only spoke about dropping your raw workflow for something simpler not that you looked for a special HDR RAW support.

I know it’s Apple and may not what you look for but does Photomator tick these boxes?

I wasn't looking for RAW hdr, just plain jane RAW support that handles moderately new cameras. I stayed on with the old Lightroom as long as I could, but a) it didn't handle my new Sony RAW files, and b) new Mac versions made it impossible to run.

I've moved away from Apple, as that was the last thing tying me to it. Photomator might be nice actually, maybe a good reason to dust off the iPad - cheers.

...

Edit: mobile editing has come a long way since I last checked. Photomator seems really great - between this and a desktop-first approach (Darktable / Davinci) I think this solves all my needs. Big thanks for the recommendation.

I need to do the jump myself to something better. The last update of Lightroom classic runs so damn slow on my Mac mini (M4). Was super annoyed yesterday while working on some pictures.

This is the new version of "GIMP is better than Photoshop", it seems.

Without updates included, buying a lifetime license nowadays feels more like a subscription which expires as soon as your OS upgrades instead. It also creates a lot of friction with different file formats when you try to collaborate. companies know how to exploit this to force you into subscriptions.