It's in the alpha channel for now, you have to join the alpha channel to get it immediately (at your risk).

Maybe more like the baseband modem in a phone?

The huge UX drawback of password managers vs. passkeys is sites that have arbitrary requirements. "Your password must be between 9 and 12 characters long, and include at least two capital letters and a special symbol". Well, my password is randomly generated, and enforcing that there are two capital letters would just reduce entropy.

If sites fixed this issue instead of pestering me for a passkey I'd be happy.

Is it a land border? Because if they are separated by a stretch of sea, well, the same is true for Canada and mainland France.

By that logic the UK doesn't have any neighbors other than the Republic of Ireland.

The UK has a land border with Spain in Gibraltar

Checkmate, I'll give you that one.

Someone else pointed out Canada also has a land border with Denmark: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49741686

What about Australia? New Zealand? Japan? Maybe Indonesia (I don't know maybe it has something on the Asian mainland).

Gibraltar is not strictly speaking part of the UK

Do I understand correctly that the main workflow is "pick the first Github repo returned by the search, check that it is legit by clicking the link, then install the app from it"? It seems very easy to make a mistake and install a malicious fork.

Yes, that is a weakness. But people have to do the same thing when they install F-Droid, or any other software directly from a developer's website. Maybe it is safer to trust an app store, but I've recently heard stories of hundreds of malicious apps getting past app store verification too.

Why would they support SMS then?

SMS is a defacto carrier tech that people expect to work, people also don't expect e2ee or any kind of privacy scheme on SMS but it might be a place to hand communication off to a different tech. Whereas RCS leaks meta data to the goog or worse (I don't know the ins and outs of RCS) but by default I would trust it less then signal, who may also collect meta data leaked through the goog, so I guess the real solution is to be boring and assume there is no security or privacy for anyone of reasonable means.

Signal > RCS > SMS.

Just because RCS can't be done without metadata doesn't mean it's a fruitless endeavor. Why not have someone use RCS to then get on Signal? That is so much better than plaintext SMS to Signal.

And for most people, RCS between Android <-> iOS is the biggest advancement in encrypted communication for the layman that I've seen since Let's Encrypt.

We've announced our plan to add RCS with Messaging Layer Security (MLS) for E2EE compatible with Google Messages and iOS. SMS/MMS will only be a fallback once that's implemented.

Google Messages is essentially the only remaining RCS client for Android and it's the only one with end-to-end encryption. It already works on GrapheneOS via a toggle for ICC authentication extending our sandboxed Google Play compatibility layer. We want to add support for it to our own Messaging app but that's not straightforward since it's not at all an open platform even to the extent of SMS/MMS.

I appreciate the update. I wish RCS was more open. I'm still astonished that it wasn't until 2024 that iOS adopted the protocol. Relying on everyone in your group chat to be all Android or all iOS (iMessage) wasn't helping anyone.

That is a positive progression for sure. I guess it sounds like RCS is gatekept behind a play store API on the android side so there isn't an open source solution quite yet? Mostly I'm lamenting that even with signal there's meta-data you can infer behavior from. I know Session messenger has a bit of a network shuffle (is it garlic routing?) That blurs metadata collection a bit, but then they watered down several of Signals' security/privacy choices. I'm constantly curious and overwhelmed at the choice of text communication platforms, just so many!

They're incorrect, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49669964.

The world unfortunately uses SMS for 2FA.

> Maybe mathematics just becomes a little more like other fields--relying on labs with lots of money for compute, digging through a corpus of AI-generated proofs, etc.

I think a better comparison is: mathematics just becomes like mining bitcoins.

I think you might have to explain that comparison a bit more to be honest. How are math proofs like bitcoins? A bitcoin has a pre-defined value, a math conjecture / proof is a bit more complicated.

A Bitcoin does not have any pre-defined value. The value of Bitcoin keeps fluctuating, and historically has risen dramatically from its initial value of 0. If this weren't the case, there would be no investment/speculation in Bitcoin because there would be no potential for any ROI.

In reality, the value of Bitcoin is determined by humans (even if indirectly, not by planning), and I think the OP’s point may have been that maths proofs can be regarded similarly. No intrinsic value, just what humans find in it.

If there's a machine that automatically turns electricity into proofs then mathematics becomes a different thing altogether.

I think OP meant trash talking. "Nice knight on the rim you got there buddy." "How long do you think you'll be able to hold onto that pawn?" "The Latvian gambit, really?"

Both, a nice and a naughty version :)

Do we have a first-hand confirmation that Buckmaster and/or Alpoge opted out? At this point it seems important information.

Whether they opted out would help assess the degree of wrongdoing, but regardless, using their own data to try to scoop them is unethical.

Also highlights that it ought to be opt-in

The classical definition of diameter of a set is "the largest possible distance between two points". So in this sense your square Ohio has a diameter of 502 km.

(It is still misleading to compare it to the diameter of an almost-spherical object, I agree. Especially because moving on the surface of a sphere it takes much longer than 502 km to walk from one point to the antipodal one.)