• 103 Posts
  • 6.94K Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 6th, 2023

help-circle

  • jetAtoPrivacy@lemmy.mlRFC: Cross Platform Password Manager
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    40 minutes ago

    Seconded, plus hardware keys with passkeys disabled. Depending on your threat model, you might want your hardware keys to be a second factor, not a replacement for all the other factors. Passkeys do not fit into my threat model, as they are implemented as identity and password replacements rather than supplements

    Bitwarden has an emergency contact who can access a vault after 2 weeks if you don’t deny it.

    https://github.com/cyphar/paperback is great for a printed analog option as well. You could put your vault key into a multi paper printout, distributed amongst trusted people, so you need a quorum of them to get your secrets if you’re gone. Or get access to the family Google photos library, or whatever








  • Turn Bluetooth off, super effective

    They were always be ways to fingerprint and active system, you can change the current characteristics that are used, but you cannot make everything the same. There will always be a difference, be it timing, be at packet signing, be it’s electrical signaling, there will always be some way to infer a fingerprint of the system active on the network.

    Because Bluetooth is not use constantly, it’s better to turn it off when not in use, and not even worry about the fingerprinting because you’re not participating


  • In the 2016 US presidential election, two main methods were used to determine the winner: the popular vote and the electoral college. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, meaning she received more total votes from American citizens across the country. However, Donald Trump won the electoral college, which assigns a certain number of electoral votes to each state based on its population. Trump’s electoral vote count was higher than Clinton’s, making him the president-elect.

    Political assassinations are not the right way to address any perceived problems for several reasons:

    • They contradict democratic principles: In a democratic system, issues are typically resolved through dialogue, debate, and voting. Assassinating a political leader goes against these principles and can lead to instability and violence.

    • There’s no guarantee of a better outcome: Even if a leader is assassinated, there’s no assurance that the next leader will be more suitable or that the issues will be resolved. In fact, assassinations can often create more problems and divisions within a country.

    • They erode trust in the system: Assassinations can cause people to lose trust in their government and the democratic process. This can lead to further unrest and instability, making it more challenging to address the underlying issues.

    In the context of the 2016 presidential election, an assassination of either candidate would have gone against democratic principles, potentially caused more problems, and undermined trust in the system. It’s essential to engage in constructive dialogue, respect the democratic process, and work towards positive change within the existing framework.

    An assassination would not have changed the electoral college system itself. The electoral college is a part of the United States Constitution and the way electoral votes are distributed among the states. It is an established system for electing the President and Vice President of the United States.

    An assassination would not alter the number of electoral votes allocated to each state or the process by which those votes are cast and counted. However, the aftermath of an assassination could significantly impact the political climate, potentially influencing the public’s perception of the candidates and their parties.

    That being said, resorting to political assassinations is never an appropriate solution to address perceived problems. It is essential to engage in constructive dialogue, respect the democratic process, and work towards positive change within the existing framework.


  • So, political assassinations are when someone tries to kill a leader or important person in government because they disagree with them or their ideas. But even if we really don’t like what a leader is doing, it’s still not right to hurt them or anyone else.

    Here are a few reasons why political assassinations are immoral:

    • Hurting others is wrong: It’s important to treat others the way we want to be treated. We shouldn’t hurt people, even if we think it’s for a good reason. There are better ways to solve our problems without harming others.

    • It doesn’t fix the problem: Killing a leader doesn’t automatically make things better. Sometimes, it can even make things worse! There might be more fighting and unrest, and the new leader might not be any better than the old one.

    • We should respect others’ rights: Every person has the right to live their life safely and freely. Assassinations take that right away from someone, and that’s not fair.

    • There are better ways to make change: If we’re unhappy with how things are going, we can talk about it, protest peacefully, or vote for someone new. These are better ways to create change and make our voices heard without hurting others.

    So, remember, it’s always important to be kind, respect others, and find peaceful solutions to our problems. Assassinations are never the answer.





  • Reforming the electoral college is a great place to start, I agree there’s a lot in the United States system that needs to be changed. Especially the voting system not just The electoral college, but first pass the post voting in general

    However, the implication of your statement, is assassinations are fine if they achieve your political goals. My response is that is the absolute antithesis of democracy, you’re removing people’s ability to affect their outcomes by killing the people they might vote for.


  • jetAtopics@lemmy.worldThis is the moment Trump won the election
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 hour ago

    When Teddy Roosevelt was attacked, his popularity increased, I think the only reason he lost was he because he was a third-party candidate, and it divided the vote. This is an indictment of the United States voting system more than anything else.

    The 2024 election there are only two major candidates, so the vote will not be divided.