You're talking about the best of what's available but that is rarely what builders use and retrofitting your already constructed house to use these could end up costing you 1/3 or more of your home's original value.

All that is to say that builders cheap out on new home construction so most people don't get to enjoy the benefits if these innovations.

Not sure where you live, but all of that stuff is minimum code in new construction where I live. And it is inspected.

Um, nobody builds a house without modern insulation (rock wool etc) and 3-pane windows. It wouldn't be legal either.

That depends where you are. Here in Australia the default is single glazed windows, and double glazed is hideously expensive, especially to retrofit.

Sounds you're somewhere with some actual building standards though.

I think all the criticism of what F-Droid is doing here (or perceived as doing) reflects more on the ones criticising than the ones being criticised.

How many things went upside down and all the "right" things were done (corporate governance, cloud native deployment, automation, etc.). The truth is none of these processes are actually going to make things more secure, and many projects went belly up despite following these kinds of recommendations.

That being said, I am grateful to F-Droid fighting the good fight. They are providing an invaluable service and I, for one, am even more grateful that they are doing it as uncompromisingly as possible (well into discomfort) according to their principles.

Not to mention this is a build server, its uptime isn't actually all that critical, assuming they then mirror the artifacts out from there.

Not to mention it also simplifies the security of controlling signing keys significantly.

Exactly, if you run out of money, processes meant jackshit.

I like this. The only information leaking is whether the memory range was previously used. I suppose you may want to control for that. I'd be surprised if OpenBSD didn't provide a flag to just freed memory to the same value as never allocated.

This makes me curious. This bit of information – knowing whether the memory range was previously used or not – how could it be exploited?

I think the 100 or so miles I can generally drive in my car while it still has gas is different from my car just stopping suddenly because of a power outage.

I really, really can't get behind this sentiment. Having a reliable, accurate time keeping mechanism doesn't seem like an outlandish issue to want to maintain. Timekeeping has been an important mechanism for humans for as long as recorded history. I don't understand the wisdom of shooting down establishing systems to make that better, even if the direct applicability to a single human's life is remote. We are all part of a huge, interconnected system whether we like it or not, and accurate, synchronized timekeeping across the world does not sound nefarious to me.

> The ownership class are the ones who invented things like time zones to stop their trains from running in to each other

In a world where this didn't happen, your comment would most likely read:

> The ownership class are the ones who had such indifference toward the lives of the lower class passengers that they didn't bother stopping their trains from running into each other.

Tell me how you feel about DST.

Paid from lower income countries or Israel's section 8200.

Interesting idea. Any numbers to back it up?

I appreciate the alarm. However, I don't know if we should feel China having this is less safe than an America, European, or other country. I think we have seen that whatever alleged rights to privacy and data protection we have are becoming more-and-more meaningless as the corporatocracy of the US manifests itself more.

I mean to say, this should not be any more alarming than if, say, Oracle, Microsoft, or Amazon bought Roomba vs. any random Chinese company.

I say this not to say that China has no human rights issues to worry about, but rather, that the US and other Western countries have just as many concerning human rights issues (including privacy, freedom of speech suppression, and police state) that we're just more familiar with and used to, compared to the Other that is China.

Basically, 6 of one, a half dozen of the other.

I think, if given the conscious choice, people would choose to not have ads as they are now. The point is, that choice is not given, and most people don't know how to eliminate them from their lives, or that they even have a choice

A lot happens in the world because people are passive, or prioritize their attention on other things, not that they are "okay" with it. If it was made easy for them, they'd choose it.

Lobbying ensures such choices are taken away from people, outside of the envelop of actionability by most people.

It's a big deal even if it's been happening for a while. It should not be something we shrug our shoulders to and move on. These are stepping stones to a greater police state.

I'm really confused why this comment is downvoted to me. It's a pretty salient observation in my opinion. If it's because it's obvious to others, I think it bears repetition because it's an important distinction to the contrary.