Selling TVs and monitors is an established business with common interest, while optimizing people’s setups isn’t.

It’s a bit like opposite to building a house, a cubic meter or two of cut wood doesn’t cost very much, even combined with other necessary materials, but to get usable end result people still hire someone other than workers to do the physical labor parts.

There are those “computer help” people running around helping grannies clean Windows from viruses (I mean those who are not scammers), they probably need to incorporate. Except then such corporate entities will likely be sued without end by companies willing to sell new shit. Balance of power.

Well, suppose it’s some stew on low fire, with some meat, lots of cabbage and potatoes, some beans … Takes time to do right.

Yes, except I meant leaving and turning it off.

I was being sarcastic. An if you are layering it, you better use a different secret.

No, DHT is just a way of determining paths and priority of value lookup by key in the network, so that the load were distributed predictably, while allowing you to find, well, what you are looking for. BTW, while everybody uses Kademlia with modifications, I’d argue that Chord is better for anything related to security and anonymity.

Storage and serving of anything big is another thing. I take it you mean that I2P nodes cache messages relayed via them when the target node is unavailable. That doesn’t have anything to do with DHT.

What are you talking about?

I’m saying that the parts of infrastructure needed to accept a message to the service from the client application, encrypted or not, associated to a user or not, are under same requirements for Signal and Telegram.

I don’t know if you understand that every big service is basically its own 90s’ Internet self-contained, and what accepts your messages is pretty similar to an SMTP server in their architecture.

For the purpose of “shoot a message, go offline and be certain it’s sent” it’s the same service.

Eh, no. A DHT doesn’t solve offline storage of data, when the source node is already offline, and the target node is not yet online.

It’s weird for Signal to not be able to do what Telegram does. Yes, for this particular purpose they are not different.

BDSM is a thing

Yes, they are, it’s very convenient to have the same thing boil the water and make tea for you, or do the laundry and dry it, or do the floor and the windows when you can be busy with something else, same with cooking. Especially remote-controlled when you are an hour away. And it’s not a slight convenience, it’s life-changing like remote work.

… Which is why we all should immediately switch to post-quantum encryption possibly much weaker against conventional cryptanalysis. Thank you, NIST, NSA and other such respectable official bodies. Of course I believe you.

In general the whole “everyone should use standard state-of-the-art cryptography” turned out to be a con. And somehow the more “standard state-of-the-art” things were broken, the more was the confidence that they are what should be used. In the 90s “standard state-of-the-art” things were being broken casually, and non-standardized ciphers were made and used far more often than now, and somehow that was fine.

I dunno, we’re all using AES with even hardware implementations of it, potentially backdoored, and with approved recommended S-boxes, without explanation how were these chosen (“by the criteria of peace on earth and goodwill toward men” is not an explanation, a mathematical paper consisting of actions you repeat and unambiguously get the same set would be that).

I think if you are afraid of your cryptography rotting, embracing some pluralism outside of cryptography is what you should do. Like maybe partitioning (by bits, not splitting into meaningful portions god forbid) the compressed data and encrypting partitions with different algorithms (one AES, one Kuznetchik, one something elliptic, one something Chinese).

It’s funny how these “smart” appliances are all addressing things radically important for households, but in a poisoned way from the beginning. As if those making them were just trying to get there first and win the bank.

There’s a problem of scale in industrial innovations, where bigger scale makes cost of production of something and cost for the consumer and network effect power better, meaning that there’s no market feedback to help those who came first get old and die to make space for those who come next.

I think this tendency is actually the solution - there is a feedback, it’s that lacking feedbacks on one level prohibits those undying monsters from being competitive on the next one. The niche of non-poisoned smart appliances won’t be filled by anything big, for example.

That’s also another funny moment - instead of dedicated appliances it makes it useful to have one universal one (basically a butler robot) that can be programmed. It’s an incentive in the direction of universal machines programmed by customers.

BTW, imagine a frame with various manipulators and sensors attached to an RPi via GPIO, where every manipulator/sensor can be whatever thing at all, just needs to have a manipulator/sensor description template. The OS of the RPi itself runs tasks of the “move those items of fragility categories such and such to such and such locations, remove dust and dirt from that surface, wash that window”, for which the existing set of manipulators/sensors and task sequence are optimized without user’s involvement (other than attaching them and providing the right description templates, though I suppose manipulator controllers can provide them too, and confirming the resulting jobs). That’s also where those LLMs etc are good enough, to interpret instructions and display the sequence of actions they are going to perform to get user’s confirmation. This way you won’t have to fear that you tell it something harmless and it starts a fire in the room.

Such a system needs a set of standard protocols for the sensors\manipulators, their description templates, and the representation of commands deciphered from human speech to a set of tasks, and the spaces and traits of objects. The programs visualizing the resulting offered set of tasks, deciphering the order, optimizing one set of tasks into a better one, and so on, should be pluggable. Suppose everything’s already made, just nobody really needs a thing that they can’t just buy and turn on.

OK, I like imagining, should work better instead and start my toy the weekends after the next ones (I suspect I won’t start it even by then, at least not in the initial ideologically good form ; nothing about robotics or home appliances). Spent these weekends on making a POV-Ray scene instead.

Why did I even write this.

The Internet is fine. It’s not going anywhere and working as intended. The services over it, however, are centralized and crappy, and in part that’s due to the Internet being built for the big centers - militaries, corporations, - to impose their policy. It’s by design that it’s no use to you if the big guys don’t want it to be.

if you want something else, you need to reinvent the Internet, this one was made with a clear purpose. For militaries and universities, both quite hierarchical structures. I guess a Lemmy instance is a bit similar to such a thing.

Anything connection-oriented creates chokepoints in attempts to make it a truly open system. So if you want that, you need a data-oriented system. Such worked over the Internet once (technically still works), meaning Usenet. It was hierarchical, but its architectural principles don’t mandate hierarchy.

It’s just the way the world is.

People at some point hoped to make radio communication what the Internet was in the 90s. Yet radio eventually settled on being for one-way stations serving many people first, for professionals in aviation, military and hiking second, and for ham enthusiasts third.

People at some point dreamed of videophones, before anything digital became common, and there were such two-way communication solutions built and demonstrated even in 60s. Yet analog video settled on cable TV. Sometimes radio.

While the open and alive communication happened, like before, in public places like libraries, parks, thematic events.

It feels nice to type this comment here, but some kinds of magic just don’t work. Today’s possession of some people, me included, with digital communication being a liberating tool to change everything is similar to early XX century possession with flying machines. The machines are real and change the world, but the possession is irrational.