upvote
Link which doesn't directly support website owned by unscrupulous trillionaire: https://xcancel.com/runasand/status/2017659019251343763?s=20
reply
Good reminder to also set up something that does this automatically for you:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46526010

reply
I generally avoid extensions that can read all sites (even if technically necessary), so use the suggestion found here [1] instead.

A few bookmarklets:

javascript:(function(){if (location.host.endsWith('x.com')) location.host='xcancel.com';})()

javascript:(function(){if (location.host.endsWith('youtube.com')) location.host='inv.nadeko.net';})()

javascript:(function(){if (location.hostname.endsWith('instagram.com')) {location.replace('https://imginn.com' + location.pathname);}})()

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1cc0uon/addin...

reply
There are trillionaires?
reply
I guess technically musk rounds to a trillion. 852B acc to Forbes
reply
I actually think it is fitting to read about a government agency weaponized by an unscrupulous billionaire going after journalists working for an unscrupulous billionaire on an unscrupulous trillionaire owned platform.
reply
[flagged]
reply
Maybe. I don't think we yet have a good understanding of how many deaths he will have caused as a result of DOGE so abruptly cutting off assistance to so many vulnerable people around the world, but I've heard estimates hover around 600,000.

Assuming that number turns out to be close to reality, how do you weigh so many unnecessary deaths against VTL rockets and the electric cars?

Perhaps a practitioner of Effective Altruism could better answer that question.

reply
I have FIRST-HAND seen corruption around USAID-style "assistance" back home. I fully support that work of his.
reply
I've seen corruption in the police. Government. Hospitals. Do you support immediately shuttering those offices with no replacements?
reply
deleted
reply
They could at least just get funded by their own government.
reply
There is corruption everywhere. But do you deny that these organizations by-and-large provided aid and therefore saves the lives of folks who may have otherwise died from illness?

This doesn't make corruption OK. But he tore out a lifeline for some people without giving them an alternative way to get aid.

reply
YES. I DENY THAT! USAID is a curse on my homeland. It lured the hopeful but never delivered.

In my 30+ years of life I have not seen a single successful project that either: wasn't a facade, or didn't benefit the ruling class only.

reply
> I don't think we yet have a good understanding of how many deaths he will have caused as a result of DOGE so abruptly cutting off assistance to so many vulnerable people around the world

Nor how many deaths will be caused by his support for far right parties across Europe, when they start ethnic cleansings.

reply
deleted
reply
>of how many deaths he will have caused as a result of DOGE so abruptly cutting off assistance to so many vulnerable people around the world

The US taxpayer has no moral obligation to send welfare "around the world". If you personally find this frustrating, you're welcome to donate that money yourself, directly. No one will stop you. If the world wishes to partake in the benefits of the American government, it should apply for statehood.

reply
> The US taxpayer has no moral obligation to send welfare "around the world".

Sure. It's a transactional purchase of stability and goodwill, via which the US has benefited enormously.

reply
Correct. But also, it's a bandaid (and a really ineffective one ie. 99% lossy) on real issues of that world.
reply
> The US taxpayer has no moral obligation to send welfare "around the world".

I mean, by way of the atrocities we've committed around the world, we kinda do.

Even if we buy your thesis, foregoing morals, geopolitics, and history, it's a useful soft power strategy...

I'm not saying fund USAID before healthcare for all in america. I'm saying of all the insane things our government wastes money on, USAID was far down on the list of most egregious.

reply
Even if his total contribution is positive, his current contribution is quite bad. And most of that bad has been tied directly to x.
reply
I can atleast still voice against Israeli genocide there. I am good for now.
reply
How many people do you think see those tweets, how many minds do you think you have changed, and at what mental cost to yourself?
reply
I see other's tweets. I don't think most are being shadowbanned. I am doing fine myself and pretty productive actually.
reply
What's the point of these questions? Seems like, "what's the point of dissent if the cards are stacked against you?"
reply
He was begging to go party with someone that spent time in prison for child exploitation.

That in itself should make you hate the dude.

reply
Yup. Hate him as person. But he is still net positive with his scientific/engineering contributions, is he not?

Wasn't Edison an asshole?

reply
Dunno, I'd rather have unabused kids than the technological breakthroughs he has contributed to. Anyone being giddy to meet with a convicted pedo is very sus in my books, and deserves no respect, regardless of their prior contributions.

Children were exploited, and we're doing this net positive analysis on whether he should face the scorn. I'm not having a go at you - it's just frustrating to see very little happening after so much has been exposed, and I think part of it comes from this mindset - 'oh he's a good guy, this is a mistake/misstep' while people that were exploited as children can't even get their justice.

It's sickening.

reply
> I'd rather have unabused kids than the technological breakthroughs he has contributed to

I'd rather have both. Hawthorne doesn't get nuked if Elon Musk goes to jail.

> Children were exploited

Abuse. Exploitation. CSAM. We're mushing words.

Child rape. These men raped children. Others not only stayed silent in full knowledge of it, but supported it directly and indirectly. More than that, they arrogantly assumed–and, by remaining in the United States, continue to assume–that they're going to get away with it.

Which category is Elon Musk in? We don't know. Most of the people in the Epstein files are innocent. But almost all of them seem to have been fine with (a) partying with an indicted and unrepentant pedophile [1] and (b) not saying for decades–and again, today–anything to the cops about a hive of child rape.

A lot of them should go to jail. All of them should be investigated. And almost all of them need to be retired from public life.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20220224113217/https://www.theda...

reply
Is there any evidence that Epstein was a pedophile?
reply
Direct? No. That he was indicted for it? Yes [1].

(Clarification: I’m using the term colloquially. Whether Epstein had a mental condition is unclear.)

[1] https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1180481...

reply
Unless I missed something, that's not pedophilia.
reply
How so?
reply
nasa is fucked up. spacex is US’s only shot.
reply
[flagged]
reply
I previously commented a solution to another problem, but it assists here too:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44746992

This command will make your MacBook hibernate when lid is closed or the laptop sleeps, so RAM is written to disk and the system powers down. The downside is that it does increase the amount of time it takes to resume.

A nice side benefit though, is that fingerprint is not accepted on first unlock, I believe secrets are still encrypted at this stage similar to cold boot. A fingerprint still unlocks from screensaver normally, as long as the system does not sleep (and therefore hibernate)

reply
> I believe secrets are still encrypted at this stage similar to cold boot.

Does this mean that the Signal desktop application doesn't lock/unlock its (presumably encrypted) database with a secret when locking/unlocking the laptop?

reply
They can hold you in contempt for 18 months for not giving your password, https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/man-who-refused-....
reply
Being held in contempt at least means you got a day in court first. A judge telling me to give up my password is different than a dozen armed, masked secret police telling me to.
reply
> A judge telling me to give up my password is different than a dozen armed, masked secret police telling me to.

Yes, a judge is unlikely to order your execution if you refuse. Based on recent pattern of their behavior, masked secret police who are living their wildest authoritarian dreams are likely to execute you if you anger them (for example by refusing to comply with their desires).

reply
I don't practically see it happen, but you have to be careful once you are in a jail though, because there are often few limits on what the administration of the jail can do to you for any supposed violation of the jail rules (which they can legally make up on a whim, and due process is extremely limited). In Illinois, at least, a county Sheriff has unlimited power to punish a detainee in any extreme way they can imagine for even the very slightest infraction. There are no laws (statutes) which define what a "crime" is inside jail and what the punishment for it is. If it wasn't for SCOTUS limiting the death penalty to certain levels of behavior (e.g. murder) then a sheriff would be able to simply legally execute a detainee for pretty much anything.
reply
That's a very unusual and narrow exception involving "foregone conclusion doctrine", an important fact missed by Ars Technica but elaborated on by AP: https://apnews.com/general-news-49da3a1e71f74e1c98012611aedc...
reply
> Authorities, citing a “foregone conclusion exception” to the Fifth Amendment, argued that Rawls could not invoke his right to self-incrimination because police already had evidence of a crime. The 3rd Circuit panel agreed, upholding a lower court decision.

I do not follow the logic here, what does that even mean? It seems very dubious. And what happens if one legitimately forgets? They just get to keep you there forever?

reply
And why do they need to unlock your phone if they already proved you did the crime?
reply
It means that if all the other evidence shows that the desired evidence is on the computer, then it is not a question of whether it exists, so youre not really searching for something. Youre retrieving it. That doesn't implicate the 4th amendment.
reply
You're delusional. When ICE starts executing people on the spot for not giving up iPhone passwords, I'll eat my words.
reply
Remember that our rights aren't laws of nature. They have to be fought for to be respected by the government.
reply
Is the knowledge of which finger to use protected as much as a passcode? Law enforcement might have the authority to physically hold the owner's finger to the device, but it seems that the owner has the right to refuse to disclose which finger is the right one. If law enforcement doesn't guess correctly in a few tries, the device could lock itself and require the passcode.

Another reason to use my dog's nose instead of a fingerprint.

reply
I really wish Apple would offer a pin option on macos. For this reason, precisely. Either that, or an option to automatically disable touchid after a short amount of time (eg an hour or if my phone doesn't connect to the laptop)
reply
You can setup a separated account with a long password on MacOS and remove your user account from accounts that can unlock FileVault. Then you can change your account to use a short password. You can also change various settings regarding how long Mac has to sleep before requiring to unlock FileVault.
reply
I didn’t understand how a user that cannot unlock FileVault helps. Can you please elaborate on this setup? Thanks.
reply
With that setup on boot or after a long sleep one first must log in into an account with longer password. Then one logs out of that and switches to the primary account with a short password.
reply
As another alternative, rather than using Touch ID you can setup a Yubikey or similar hardware key for login to macOS. Then your login does indeed become a PIN with 3 tries before lockout. That plus a complex password is pretty convenient but not biometric. It's what I've done for a long time on my desktop devices.
reply
Wait, wasn’t touch id phased out together with the intel touch bar macbooks? I’ve never used anything but a long password to unlock.
reply
No, it's been part of the power button since then.
reply
On my Macbook Pro, I usually need to use both touch and a password but that might be only when some hours have passed between log ins.
reply
You can script a time out if desired.
reply
uhm, are you saying its not possible to require an actual password to unlock osx?
reply
My guess is they want to have a PIN as a short-term credential analogous to the Touch ID, that is, it only works for X hours per password auth before needing password auth again, and then you only get X tries on the PIN before it either locks the PIN out and you need the full password to reactivate it (or I guess it could wipe the laptop à la iPhone).
reply
There's only ten possible guesses, and most people use their thumb and/or index finger, leaving four much likelier guesses.

Also, IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that if law enforcement has a warrant to seize property from you, they're not obligated to do so immediately the instant they see you - they could have someone follow you and watch to see how you unlock your phone before seizing it.

reply
0.1 in itself is a very good odd, and 0.1 * n tries is even more laughable. Also most people have two fingers touchID, which makes this number close to half in reality.
reply
I don't get why I can be forced to use my biometrics to unlock but I cannot be forced to give a pin. Doesn't jive in my brain.
reply
It's something you know vs. something you have. That's how the legal system sees it. You might not tell someone the pin to your safe, but if police find the key to it, or hire a locksmith to drill out your safe, it's theirs with a warrant.

It's interesting in the case of social media companies. Technically the data held is the companies data (Google, Meta, etc.) however courts have ruled that a person still has an expectation of privacy and therefore police need a warrant.

reply
When they arrest you, they have physical control of your body. You're in handcuffs. They can put your fingers against the unlock button. You can make a fist, but they can have more strength and leverage to unfist your fist.

There's no known technique to force you to input a password.

reply
Are we not talking about a legal difference? That was my reading.
reply
The law follows practicality in this instance.
reply
Well there is one known technique. https://xkcd.com/538/
reply
The fifth amendment gives you the right to be silent, but they didn't write in anything about biometrics.
reply
"technicality" or "loophole" is probably the word.

I fully agree, forced biometrics is bullshit.

I say the same about forced blood removal for BAC testing. They can get a warrant for your blood, that's crazy to me.

reply
> they can't make you give them your password.

Except when they can: https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-134/state-v-andrews/

reply
75 footnotes for 89 sentences, nice! I guess that's how they roll over at the HLR.
reply
Also, using biometrics on a device, and your biometrics unlock said device, do wonders for proving to a jury that you owned and operated that device. So you're double screwed in that regard.
reply
Remember, this isn't how it works in every country.
reply
As far as I know lockdown mode and BFU prevent touch ID unlocking.

At least a password and pin you choose to give over.

reply
Reminder that you can press the iPhone power button five times to require passcode for the next unlock.
reply
Everyone makes this same comment on each of these threads, but it's important to remember this only works if you have some sort of advance warning. If you have the iPhone in your hand and there is a loaded gun pointed at your head telling you not to move, you probably won't want to move.
reply
Serious question. If I am re-entering the US after traveling abroad, can customs legally ask me to turn the phone back on and/or seize my phone? I am a US citizen.

Out of habit, I keep my phone off during the flight and turn it on after clearing customs.

reply
my understanding is that they can hold you for a couple days without charges for your insubordination but as a citizen they have to let you back into the country or officially arrest you, try to get an actual warrant, etc.
reply
they can just break the law
reply
If you are a US citizen, you legally cannot be denied re-entry into the country for any reason, including not unlocking your phone. They can make it really annoying and detain you for a while, though.
reply
They can also practically keep your phone indefinitely.
reply
[dead]
reply
Did you know that on most models of iPhone, saying "Hey Siri, who's iPhone is this?" will disable biometric authentication until the passcode is entered?
reply
hm. didn't work on my 17 pro :( might be due to a setting i have.
reply
They disabled that in like iOS 18.
reply
Or squeeze the power and volume buttons for a couple of seconds. It’s good to practice both these gestures so that they become reflex, rather than trying to remember them when they’re needed.
reply
Sad, neither of those works on Android. Pressing the power button activates the emergency call screen with a countdown to call emergency services, and power + volume either just takes a screenshot or enables vibrations/haptics depending on which volume button you press.
reply
Did you check your phone settings? Mine has an option to add it to the power menu, so you get to it by whichever method you use to do that (which itself is sad that phones are starting to differ in what the power key does).
reply
On Pixel phones, Power + Volume Up retrieves a menu where you can select "Lockdown".
reply
Not on my Pixel phone, that just sets it to vibrate instead of ring. Holding down the power button retrieves a menu where you can select "Lockdown".
reply
On my 9 you get a setting to choose if holding Power gets you the power menu or activates the assistant (I think it defaulted to assistant? I have it set to the power menu because I don't really ever use the assistant.)
reply
Yes, that was the default for me, but I changed it in settings.
reply
Oh wow, just going into the "should I shutdown" menu also goes into pre-boot lock state? I didn't know that.
reply
It doesn't reenter a BFU state, but it requires a passcode for the next unlock.
reply
It's close enough, because (most of) the encryption keys are wiped from memory every time the device is locked, and this action makes the secure enclave require PIN authentication to release them again.
reply
> It's close enough

Not really, because tools like Cellbrite are more limited with BFU, hence the manual informing LEO to keep (locked) devices charged, amd the countermeasures being iOS forcefully rebooting devices that have been locked for too long.

reply
There is a way now to force BFU from a phone that is turned on, I can't remember the sequence
reply
It’s called restarting the phone.
reply
Eh? BFU ("before first unlock") is, by definition, the state that a phone is in when it is turned on. There's no need to "force" it.

If you mean forcing an iOS device out of BFU, that's impossible. The device's storage is encrypted using a key derived from the user's passcode. That key is only available once the user has unlocked the device once, using their passcode.

reply
Alternately, hold the power button and either volume button together for a few seconds.
reply
This is the third person advocating button squeezing, as a reminder: IF a gun is on you the jig is up, you can be shot for resisting or reaching for a potential weapon. Wireless detonators do exist, don't f around please.
reply
In case anyone is wondering: In newer versions of MacOS, the user must log out to require a password. Locking screen no longer requires password if Touch ID is enabled.
reply
Is that actually true? I'm fairly confident my work Mac requires a password if it's idle more than a few days (typically over the weekend).
reply
Shift+Option+Command+Q is your fastest route there, but unsaved work will block.
reply
Settings -> lock screen -> “Require password after screen saver begins or display is turned off”
reply
As if the government is not above breaking the law and using rubber hose decryption. The current administration’s justice department has been caught lying left and right
reply
And threats aren't illegal. They can put a gun to wife's head and say they're going to shoot. It's up to you then to call their bluff.
reply
Plausible deniability still works. You enter your duress code and your system boots to a secondary partition with Facebook and Snapchat. No such OS exists.
reply
Allowed to require - very mildly constructed sentence, which could include torture or force abuse...

https://xkcd.com/538/

reply
I just searched the case. I'm appalled. It looks like USA doesn't have legal protection for reporter sources. Or better, Biden created some, but it was revoked by the current administration.

The real news here isn't privacy control in a consumer OS ir the right to privacy, but USA, the leader of the free world, becoming an autocracy.

reply