Re: DEI
Spending money to create a fairer society and a habitable planet? The horror.
213 publicly visible posts • joined 6 Jul 2007
1. It's not happening.
2. It is happening but it's not that bad.
3. It is that bad but it's not our fault.
4. It is our fault but it's too late to do anything now.
You are speedrunning this in a single thread, moving from 1 to 2 in just one post. Slow down or you'll hit 4 and have nowhere to go.
God forbid that there might be consequences for driving your two ton high speed battering ram in a way that results in someone being killed. Vehicles are dangerous and it is up to the driver to make sure that it is being used safely. If there were real consequences for dangerous driving, fewer people might do it, but the public (and often the courts) seem to see being a driver as a get-out-of-jail-free card for any carnage inflicted by them.
Magical thinking from the government is usual. Just because something is logically impossible doesn't stop them pursuing it as policy - see Brexit and how they thought we could "have our cake and eat it", despite everyone who actually knew anything about it telling them it was fucking stupid and wouldn't work. I fully expect them to ram this through and it to be just as successful as Brexit is.
I'm a bit confused about the use of the phrase. It implies there is "weak" encryption, with a line drawn somewhere between the two. I'd be interested to know where the line is and if there is any consensus about where it is. I'd imagine that the security services would like to class anything above ROT13 as strong.
Can I suggest everyone stops calling it "strong" encryption? Strong encryption = encryption, any other form of "encryption" is meaningless.