I think this is the latter case, where the backups are useless to signal or law enforcement, and can only be decrypted by the keys that you hold on your device (or in a backup if you made one). The keys get spread to all the devices you have logged in to signal, so if you have more than one you're reasonably ok to not make an effort to back them up explicitly. If you lost all your logged in devices and had no backup of the keys, their cloud backup would be useless, but it's not super likely I don't think.

It's absolutely the case that you could just use any random cloud backup provider, and that their service is basically an overpriced, limited version of what you can get elsewhere. But even with all those caveats, I think it's a pretty good idea for them to offer this service. Most non-technical people could understand how to back up their chat data to some other cloud provider, but they simply don't want to learn. They'd rather tick a box in the app and pay $24 per year forever.

Personally that's not me, sounds like it's not you, but I'm not offended that the option exists, and I think it's an ok way for them to secure $2 recurring donations in exchange for a token service.

After this administration started out on day one illegally giving a bunch of 19-year olds unfettered access to supposedly private data across practically all federal government agencies I can't wait to sign up for this!

I know you're joking that they've already been scammed once (by apple) but apple is not wrong here to say that people are incredibly stupid and liable to get tricked into side loading malware.

I don't think that's enough to override the fundamental right to use the hardware you purchased any way you please, but regardless, they are correct.

Castillo de San Marcos - Built at Sea Level in 1672.

Castillo de San Marcos - Still at Sea Level in 2025.

How is this of any significance to humanity? Seems like a weird way to waste both time and money.

Now all my crappy code will crash much faster. ;)

I made my chat font Comic Sans because I think it's funny that the "Supreme Allied Linux Commander" for our organization (me) uses Comic Sans on Skype For Business. Keeps 'em on their toes.

The truth is, there's just not as much work to be done these days. Mundane office tasks that used to take hours now take minutes thanks to electronic records keeping and other tools. Ignore business people who want do drive subordinates ever faster. They are, frankly, a bunch of psychopaths to be shunned.

The whole point of developing technology and making everything more efficient is to leave more time for health, leisure, and personal development. Compare labor intensive farming 300 years ago to machine automated farms today. Compare manufacturing times for clothing and other goods. That trend ought to continue until we are working just a few hours, 2 or 3 days a week to produce what we need to live, and spend the rest of the time on hobbies, passions, family and friends.

This is what we want! This is where we are headed! Don't let a handful of powerhungry lunatics tell you any different. Don't believe the lies. Efficiency gains are supposed to push towards a life of leisure for all, not a hellish state of producing tons and tons of unnecessary work with as few people as possible. That's insane.

That was 12 years ago. A 12 year out of date critique of a web technology that has had ongoing language updates and two entire rewrites in that interval should be viewed with some suspicion. Also, are you really just citing the title of the article and none of the content?

I'm not even defending PHP here, just questioning lazy kneejerk, "but it sucked once, so now I hate it forever" thinking.

I'll disagree a little bit: we have heavy lift rockets bringing mass to orbit at a greater rate than any time in history and new larger and more efficient rockets on the cusp of being brought to use, with next generations planned for the future. Space launch technology -- the actual raw launching of mass to orbit, where it can be useful -- has advanced. And mass to orbit means more fuel -- if we really wanted to get something out there faster.

And that's where our statements arrive at the same conclusion: there's little need to do anything but super efficient deep space probes. While I can quibble with your implied assertion about newer technology not making a difference in ability, in a practical sense given our funding of deep space research, the big tech upgrade has been to data collection devices and communication. We'll have to have way cheaper lift capability before extra fuel to cut time off a project makes any kind of sense. But it is now at least plausible as an option.

(Also, this appears to be the only thread that isn't making Trek or Aliens jokes)

But Brave Browser has no problem blocking them.

What's "so special" abou this is that Getty is one of the largest single copyright holders in the world and they know the licensing status of every piece of media in their collection, so any AI trained on those images is guaranteed liability-free for their clients."

the monetization schema is bullshit - it looks like the tiktok model where there's a giant pool of money split between all the creators every year with the size of that pool determined by "business growth" (ie in a way that prioritized the business and hands the remains to the creators) PLUS bits of the youtube model of constantly shifting goals and targets to keep planning ability for its creators at a minimum - but if you want to know why this AI that rips off artists is "better" than the rest, that's why.

ARS' spin is fucking gross, nothing in the actual article says anything close to what that headline is implying.

The point of advertising is to generate demand (want). The more you can influence people to want your product, the more of your product you're going to sell.

This article strikes a tone that suggests the author believes "big tech" is being "petulant" about end to end encryption, and it seems to be trying pretty hard to conflate other issues, like blocked mergers, with the right to privacy and proper implementation of secure communications.

Signal, mentioned by name in the article, is notably NOT big tech, not even a for-profit company, and they're saying the same thing everyone else is saying: they will exit the market if this regulation goes into effect. That should speak volumes and its stunning that UK politicians have not seemed to notice.