Yeah that’s cool and all but you’re strawmanning. Your original comment, that I hear parroted a lot, is that Telegram is (basically) unencrypted, and regardless of your feelings about the suitability of MTProto (not SSL) that’s patently untrue.

There’s no evidence that MTProto has ever been cracked, nor any evidence of them selling or allowing anyone access to their servers and recent headline news backs this up. Whether you choose to trust them with your data is up to the individual to decide. I’m just tired of seeing the “Telegram is unencrypted” claim in every instant messaging thread, made by people who don’t know or care to know the difference between encryption and E2E encryption.

Google, on the other hand, routinely allow “agencies” access to their servers, often without a warrant, and WhatsApp - who you cite as a good example of E2E encryption - stores chat backups on GDrive unencrypted by default. They added the option to encrypt last year but nobody was forced (or possibly even asked?) to turn it on, and to this day no encryption of backups is still the default. And while you might encrypt your backups, can you be sure the same is true for the people on the other end of your chats?

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make? The people that claim “Telegram is unencrypted” seem to be of the belief that literal plaintext is flying over the air for anyone with a mediocum of knowledge to easily intercept, and that’s just not true.

Lacking end-to-end encryption does not mean it lacks any encryption at all, and that point seems to escape most people.

To take it to its logical conclusion you can argue that Signal is also “unencrypted” because it needs to be eventually in order for you to read a message. Ridiculous? Absolutely, but so is the oft-made opine that Telegram is unencrypted.

The difference is that Telegram stores a copy of your chats that they themselves can decrypt for operational reasons. It’s up to the user to decide whether the additional functionality that comes with this is worth the risk of a hostile agent successfully requisitioning those chats directly from Telegram themselves, rather than just busting through your door and threatening to break your legs if you don’t unlock your phone.

On the other hand, if you fill your Telegram hosted chats with a whole load of benign crap that nobody could possibly care about and actually use the “secret chat bullshit” for your spicier chats then you have plausible deniability baked right in.

Thank you! It winds me up so much when people parrot that claim.

Telegram is encrypted in transit and encrypted at rest on their servers. At no point is any data stored or transmitted without encryption. Whether you believe their claims of never giving out encryption keys is another matter.

My view is that if the feds wanted my chat logs that badly they wouldn’t go after Telegram, they’d go after me and my device directly, and at that point all bets are off.

I do that a lot on my phone but keep forgetting it’s a thing on desktop for some reason.

4 dollars

But I missed a trick by not also using ergo.

It’s already been said, but shatterproof does not mean it’s indestructible. It means that when it does break it won’t shatter into a hundred jagged edged pieces that go flying into the air and lodge themselves into some kid’s eyeball.

This one broke cleanly in twain and did not shatter. The packaging’s claim is accurate.

Jesus Christ! A friend of mine exploded a mountain bike tire when trying to inflate it to 100psi, assuming it would be the same as on his racing bike, he said it went off like a grenade. I can’t imagine what a car tire would be like.

Firefox. I’m fairly convinced it’s something to do with UBO or one of the blocklists but I’ve never taken the time to dig into it properly.

You’ve reminded me of a similar frustration that I’ve never found the answer to - though it may be adblock related - in that whenever I open a link to eBay it completely wipes the history for that tab. Or possibly it opens a new tab and kills the parent. Either way I always forget about it until the next time and then it drives me mad all over again.

Yeah this. Shortly before he left the church, a friend of mine’s pastor told him not to recycle because it delays the end times. These people want Armageddon and think they’re doing god’s work by hurrying it along.

Yeah I’d have been interested to know how long it would take to suitably warm up from the surface. I guess we’ll never know.

I have an app called Star Walk 2 that does something very similar. Notifications about cool shit happening and then helps you to look in the right direction for it, including ISS fly-bys.

It doesn’t excuse it but in my town there is literally nothing (free) for teenagers to do besides one lowly skate ramp. Bored kids find their own fun and some of the blame for their destructive behaviour must lie with the town planners who ignore the younger population.

you’re absolutely making things up

I could tell you what I see but you wouldn’t believe me anyway.

I was trying to show that not everyone perceives the world around them in the same way, and most people find it fascinating when they take a step back to really think about it. But you’ve already decided that simply not being able to see colors in the same way as you makes me inherently wrong, so I’m not going to engage any further.

Yes I understand the meme and I’m not trying to get into an argument. I’m just trying to educate as to why relying on color as the primary differentiator is not a solution to the problem as proposed.

at a glance, color is a much faster tool we use to identify these icons

Think about what you’re saying here, and consider how ridiculous it would sound if you said that to someone who was completely blind.

Sure, to a “color normal” person, something’s color is a great differentiator, but even when using a colorblind friendly pallette it’s just far easier for us to distinguish different shapes than colors. We’ve spent our whole lives adapting to a lack of color information so asking us to be able to work purely on color alone is like asking a blind person to see.

Again, and this part is really important and oft overlooked - this applies even when a designer has gone out of their way to choose a colorblind friendly pallette. It’s just not that easy for us. I honestly couldn’t even tell you what Google’s corporate pallette is without looking and I’m sure that information is second nature to normies.

Nope. The icons are honestly good enough as they are, but the original post was being disingenuous in suggesting they’re no more distinguishable than squares.

Running with that logic, having each square a different color does not solve the problem for those of us who can’t easily distinguish those colors.

Yes, but the original post is suggesting that they’re ambiguous enough to all be squares. Running with that concept, making a bunch of squares different colors doesn’t fix the issue for those of us who can’t easily identify those colors.

Except that the original post was contesting that those shapes are indistinguishable from each other. My point, therefore, is that the solution offered in the post I replied to would still be indistinguishable to 300 million people.

Problem solved! If we ignore the world’s ~300 million colorblind people.