I don’t have evidence that shows specific examples of where it happens, but the state apparatus for it to do so exists. I think it’s a reasonable assumption that it is happening on a daily basis.

It’s especially disappointing when the entire system is foiled by the balaclavas worn by so many of the country’s criminals every day anyway.

The only realistic protection here is a “decoy” partition, a partition that provides access to a separate installation of the OS. That gives the device owner plausible deniability that their real system even exists.

So what happens when using and optimising these systems becomes a priority for the state?

The apparatus is there, and capabilities can catch up to opportunities it presents.

I’m not saying that “this doesn’t matter because it’s slightly worse than before”. I’m saying the frog has been boiling for a long time.

I don’t want people being surprised as though THIS is the nail in the coffin of untracked movement across the city. As others have said, we’ve always been tracked. This is just them being open about their latest methods.

I hope this serves as a warning for citizens elsewhere: this is a slope that governments will only slide down further. There is no coming back from this in the UK.

Supermarkets in the UK point cameras at your face at self-checkout.

Roadside CCTV captures your registration plate and tracks your vehicle across the country.

Your ISP proactively shares your web history with the state.

Being an anonymous citizen in the UK has been an impossibility for at least 20 years.

Any weapons can and will be utilised against a perceived enemy. When that perceived enemy becomes /you/, you should expect these things to be used against you.

History has taught us that before.

We have seen in the last 10 years that liberal democracies are fragile things. Robust restrictions on the state’s ability to monitor, interfere with and restrict the daily lives of its citizens aren’t a luxury; they’re essential to protecting a free and just society.

But I just can’t bring myself to try out ANOTHER meeting notetaker app. The space just feels so commoditised. How different will this be to Fireflies? Or the six dozen others?

Getting that strap would absolutely work as a bribe though. I love it…

The barriers to entry / “respect” angle is a weird one to go in. Obviously people will think they can do marketing if the main, qualified activity you use as an example is… /choosing colours on a landing page/. Marketers have way more important, difficult and “high-barrier-to-entry” tasks to do in order to succeed - and this suggests Tereza is totally unaware of them.

So is she trying to say that software engineers are being treated by the market like marketers?

“Writers, designers, and marketers all have wider pay distributions because the barrier to entry is low and the work is visible: anyone can try, everyone has an opinion, and only the proven best command a premium.” My sweet summer child, have you ever MET a software engineer? What the fuck do you think they do!?

Her paradox of choice implies that she’s ACTUALLY talking about software /companies/… but none of this is new information. Marketers are trained in positioning, segmentation and “finding the fit” - she doesn’t even make a point here!

The middle class of software won’t disappear. Again, she’s equating SaaS to be “all software” (as a marketer she should know better).

And finally, the most critical and undeniable evidence that Tereza is by NO means the “very decent marketer” she calls herself… “Sell services, not software”.

What? Functionally and positionally they are identical. One sells OUTCOMES. It doesn’t matter, as a marketer, whether your product is a service or a software. The product is just ONE of the 4Ps we’re trained to think about when making tactical decisions. Let alone strategic ones.

I’d really strong encourage anybody reading this interested in marketing to read a bit of Mark Ritson. This is the most irritating essay I’ve read in months.

VCs will sometimes invest ‘convertible notes’ which start as debt and “convert” into equity in favourable scenarios.

‘Swamp’ and ‘drag’ clauses are also commmon: if a management team/CEO doesn’t meet their goals as set by the board (like give investors a meaningful exit) then investors can take over and replace that team, or force a sale.

Illiquid private equity in an early stage business, especially one that isnt growing, is hard to get rid of. That’s why investors derisk with terms that massively favour them at the expense of the business they invest in.

I'm not suggesting monetising your audience or starting a substack, but you never know when having a list of people who are interested in the things you build could come in handy.

I wouldn't even think you'd need to send a confirmation email: just leave it there and see who fills it in.

I am by no means an AI doomer, and I use frontier models to a great extent every day as part of my job…

But those at the top of the corporate food chain, those who own and profit from the AI companies themselves, will reap the rewards of this technology.

Maybe there won’t be a dramatic elimination of jobs. But even if there isn’t, the overwhelming majority of the “value” will be going to the 1% and the working class will benefit not.

Heads they win, tails we lose.

AI will not meaningfully improve the standard of living or the quality of life of the everyman. But it will funnel even more of his share of the profit from his work to his corporate paymasters.

Previously we had strikes, powerful unions and even revolutions. There will be none of that this time round.

Not sure it will feed my kids, put a roof over my head and look after me as I age and my body fails me though.

As mentioned below, it’s easy to feel safe and secure when one has the means, independent of their livelihood.

Next year, and the year after, Fable, GPT 5.5 and Gemini 3.5 will feel quite ordinary. And perhaps even within reach of a prosumer running models locally.

Justified.

There’s something hilariously poetic about a ~2,500 year old fable being relevant today, because of AI.

Not sure how those passed me by.

I guess I just liked the article!

And others bitching about being instructed to read the whole thing, clearly didn’t.

It’s not JUST about Proton Meet. The article goes on to point out that even for Proton Mail, around 10,000 foreign subpoenas were complied with last year.

It draws attention to the STARK contrast between their messaging and their actual culpability when it comes to compliance with foreign powers.

The author also goes on to talk about the hypocrisy in Proton’s use of AWS, Google, DigitalOcean and Google and Apple app stores, which goes to more or less completely undermine Proton’s standing here.

It’s also worth drawing attention to their class action waiver, AND their bizarrely hypocritical ToS which flies in the face of their positioning.

Which, you know, others would have found out if they read before commenting.

Like the article requested.