Actually, in general I would like to see RSS (or even a more draconic, constrained form of RSS) be a relevant web standard for traditional information dense webpages.

Additionally, Arxiv won't kick you off their platform if you post a preprint there, and then you get published in Nature.

In other words, the reason it does not change the point is that Arxiv does not weaken the publication process for the actual journals the preprint will be submitted to. You still need peer review to get published and you are still incentivised to do just that.

You could argue 'preprints ARE publishing' but I'd need to be convinced of that point because I don't agree for the reasons stated above.

An important note: my suggestions would make many business models unviable. I see this as a win-win because I think that profiting on bad security is extremely unethical and should be illegal.

My requests are as follows:

1. It must be at least a 1-year jailable offence without bail to sell an IoT device that does not have the software and firmware 100% open source. This is the absolute minimum and allows end user auditing. Implementing anything else before this is meaningless.

2. The company must pledge to provide security updates for at least 5 years for any device they sell (if there is no sale, this should not apply).

3. For a security update to be valid in the eyes of the FCC, the update must be signed by an existing employee (accountability must be assigned).

4. If an IoT supplier wishes to aggregate data to sell to 3rd parties, this MUST be optional and it MUST be opt-in.

5. Vulnerability detection and registration must be handled by a 3rd party with a lodgement portal, and companies should have at most 1 month to patch it once the vulnerability has been lodged in the 3rd party portal. Failure to fix in time should accrue exponentiating fines.

Looks wise, they're all the same (bar mint) since they all use stock GNOME and KDE.

Ecosystem, as in the specific tools available to make things a turnkey experience, I'd say NixOS takes care of you really well and is on par with arch and Debian.

All three of the above will vary with individual experience though.

- Linux Mint (Debian version)

- Debian

- NixOS

"OK, but" does not always mean "put everything you just said to the side. Here is the REAL topic", it is quite literally adding stuff to consider to the discussion. And you can respond to it as such.

E.g. "yeah true there is more thought extended to it, but I think its a mixed message because its also kind of a waste. What do you think about that wastefulness anyhow?" Is completely normal and does what the article is implying, without it being TOO standoffish. You address what was said, then ask a specific question about your previous point(s). Its courteous but firm.

Obviously people who don't argue in good faith and try to talk over you won't let you get a piece in here, but that's a separate issue IMO, and those people aren't really worth the trouble.

Specifically, if Sam uses a VPN after having communication restrictions put in place around what he can say, is that inherently suspicious to a court? I would have assumed it is insufficient on its own but could be presented as the means for breaking court order if shown with other supporting evidence.

I'm not a lawyer mind you, so this is just me trying to understand it for myself.

The sheer volume that the big American units have been caught in over the last 5 or so years has really sobered me up on their supposedly high quality research standards.

That's not to say they're uniformly bad - just that they don't have an untouchable track record like they imply.

They frequently make subtle but impactful misinterpretations, or more outrageous redirections, such as the Quantum Gravity fiasco from earlier this year. To excuse that is to participate in Gell Man amnesia, in my view.

In my case, I am not expecting total security. I just want access to be extremely inconvenient for opportunistic attackers.

Still a bit confusing that its not on by default, but also much more trustable.

QubesOS does a lot of good things, but Secure Boot is sort of a nonnegotiable for a lot of security profiles because its one of the few ways you protect boot.

I'd be interested to hear from someone more in the know why they haven't implemented it yet.

If a company willingly self-identifies itself with things like blockchain, AI, or even just feel-good word salads, I know not to apply there.

*On that note: the phrase 'embracing AI' sounds so slimy. Why do I need to hug the robot?

Edit: I worded that a bit poorly. The point I wanted to convey was that the physical location isn't what determines accountability.