the problem is that the congress is controlled by the oposition who only wants to come back to power, all the deep reforms that milei sent to the congress were cancelled last week. Its not that the chainsaw didnt work, it seems that fp does not understand argentine politics or doesnt want to. Its not intellectually honest
It's blindingly obvious except to the wilfully ignorant that in order for argentina to survive milei or someone like him must succeed. The same thing is true with totally different circumstances for El salvador.
A less severe version of this problem is being faced by trump. He's being forced to rely on ambitious growth forecasts to justify his One big beautiful bill and increasing the deficit because of political considerations. I actually have sympathy for Elon Musks frustration.
>We have all kinds of markets already, ones that are much faster, more liquid and more efficient than any blockchain-backed exchanges.
You are talking probably from a developed country point of view. For those like me who lives in a developing country none of those are accessible for everyone, only for a few percentage of the society.
Cryptocurrencies solves a lot of problems for people in oppressed countries or with a lot of terrible regulations and high inflation rates.
apologies for being off topic, but: I am a long time Fastmail customer, but the law passed in Australia yesterday has me somewhat concerned. Fastmail is an Australian company. Anyone else concerned?
As far as I can tell, it changes nothing, assuming that your email was sent as plain text. Although Fastmail stores your email on encrypted disks [1], it of course has the encryption keys for these disks. Even before the new law, they would have been subject to any Australian search warrant requiring that they hand over your email, and would not have had any technical reason for not complying.
In general, unless you and your correspondents are using PGP or some such, your email is readable by anyone who can obtain a search warrant in the country where your email provider resides. (Protonmail may or may not be an exception [2]).
Australian here. The law passed on Thursday is a massive concern, but in the case of an email provider there isn't as much of a change from what they could already do (TCNs aren't necessary -- they fundamentally already have collection capability unless you are using PGP for everything).
However there are some other worrying changes like the fact that TANs and TARs are secret and have no judicial review. Warrants (even the new computer access warrants that were passed in the same bill) have judicial review. But at the end of the day, they'd be serving a warrant to fastmail, not you.
Personally I use mailbox.org, and one of the really nice features is that you can give them a PGP public key and they'll encrypt everything you receive. So in the case of a warrant (though Germany has different laws on that matter) they could, at most, get the contents of new emails.
Author here, I had completely missed that news. It is a bit concerning, you are totally right. I have edited the article to mention it and alternatives, thank you.
At least of the last time I looked around (within the past year), it's the only major cloud-based option that isn't ad-supported, but does offer all the extra goodies like calendars.
Take a look at posteo.de for ad-free email with a strong focus on privacy. It’s also way cheaper than the lowest plan that Fastmail has. Posteo is a private company, doesn’t take investor funding and has been profitable.
There are a couple of things I don’t like about Posteo (as a customer):
1. It recycles deleted addresses/aliases after six months and makes them avaiufor someone else to claim and use. Ideally, this should be never done to protect customers. Fastmail also recycles deleted addresses/emails within a few months (sooner than Posteo does, IIRC).
2. It provides only two aliases in the base pricing and additional aliases (if many are required) will increase the cost. Fastmail provides 600 aliases in every plan! So if you’re heavy on aliases, Fastmail would be cheaper.
Other providers similar to this that I haven’t subscribed to, but you can read up on or try, are mailfence (has a free plan as well), runbox and mailbox.org. All of them have been around for quite sometime and also provide IMAP access (which is important if you want to migrate email content from one provider to another).
Author here, thank you for the alternatives suggestions! I have edited the post and included them. I did not want the article to look like an ad for Fastmail by any means
Author here, really sorry if it felt like an ad, it is not! I have edited the app to include links to competitors. My point is to encourage people to resist Google's hegemony
Another curious instrument is the Vako Orchestron, the one used by kraftwerk in trans europe express [1], this instrument uses optical disks as source of sound
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhkIOw4TyXE
Hey can someone explain this position? You see it a lot on the internet - we all know it's just short for the mouthful of "The United States of America", right?
Is it just garden variety anti-Americanism, or is it based on something else? You also see the form "American means anyone from both continents," which is off in exactly the same way.
No one from Canada or Mexico would say “I am an American”. You only here that from someone from the USA. So whatever the official title is the popular usage is that is some says they are “American” it means they are a citizen of the United States Of America.
On almost any system, if you use a compiler to build a binary from source code twice in a row, you will get two different binaries. Simple things like using "__DATE__" and "__TIME__" macros in C, or the linker embedding a link timestamp in a executable file header, will trigger this even in the same environment. Moving between machines is even trickier, as __FILE__ and __DIR__ and a ton of other inputs conspire to create changes in the output.
It's hard work to set up a project where you can actually get exactly the same binary over and over again.
I think asking "why is Debian not reproducible" is missing the mark a little - when everything else (Windows, macOS, FreeBSD, etc etc etc) is probably not reproducible, the better question is perhaps "why is Debian trying to be reproducible, and why aren't other projects talking about this just as much" :)
Also some build systems create artifacts as a result of timing-dependent algorithms. Simply put, if two things A and B run simultaneously, and A completes before B, then in some compilers/build systems/etc the result can be different from B completing before A. GHC, as a well-known example, suffers from this problem.
Often, package is built using a certain library version (from a different package), that library is then updated - and the new package cannot build using the new library.
Or... deeper parts of the compiler toolchain change, and the application doesn't re-build without changes.
That has nothing to do with reproducible builds - the issue being solved by reproducible builds is that even in exactly the same environment, running the same build script twice can result in differences in the output.
Surely it can't have "nothing to do" ? Many debian source packages specifies dependencies using >= , something has to account for performing a build using the same minor version of such a dependency.
Yes, but that's a different problem from reproducible builds. The only thing that reproducible builds is solving is ensuring that the same package built with the same dependencies in the same environment results in the same output.
"Second, the set of tools used to perform the build and more generally the build environment should either be recorded or pre-defined"
FWIW, I'm a committer on a Linux distro specifically constructed to guarantee build reproducibility (nixos.org), so I'm pretty sure I know what is generally meant by "reproducible builds" in common industry vernacular. Byte-for-byte is important, but that's hardly the whole picture.
If the dependency is packaged separately, then you typically wouldn't expect minor version changes in the dependency to affect the contents of the package being built. If there are major changes to the header files being exported or if there's static linking involved then changes are to be expected. But if not, you'd expect the changes to show up in the dynamically linked process image, not the on-disk package.
