Jason2357

Do you have a recommendation for consumer-priced outdoor cameras/doorbells? Seems like a minefield.

I get the bitterness, but lets not normalize what he did.

I agree, but for the reasons above, it's a terrible outcome for everyone on the internet. The number of people who will keep their router up to date with security patches are abysmal. Fix the ISPs and it would work, but you can't fix the situation where the majority of residential humans suck at managing routers.

lol. Tor isn't sustainable? it's been running for decades. There are plenty of other sustainable projects with big hosting bills; Wikipedia, Debian, Arch, Openstreetmap, etc. If you take VC money, though, they come knocking. It's a ticking time bomb.

Yes, this really is a situation where ISP managed devices could really be the right option for most -if they weren't such terrible companies.

This is great! TVO kids is already awesome, now there are 2 public, commercial-free options that don't exist just to make kids go crazy over the latest plastic toy.

Indeed! Ever since XMPP was argued to be superior to everything else, I've come to just say "build it and show us." No one cares about having multiple chat apps on their devices -if it's good enough, it will be added along side Signal first, then replace it only when it's clearly better.

Unless things have changed, calls on signal between you and people on your contact list are p2p. This is necessary to have a call experience like what people are used to. The latency of going through a relay makes conversation more difficult. Yes that does mean that someone on the network can see that there is a signal call between the 2 ip addresses (but they wouldn't know the identities of the users) https://signal.org/blog/signal-video-calls/

a) the wording makes it legally ambiguous what exactly would constitute violating the text. If it just said "comply with anti-discrimination laws," that would be one thing.

b) It applies to the whole organization, not just the group accepting and applying the grant, making it very challenging to meet the requirement.

c) Unlike just about any other grant, the funds can be clawed back in the future if something was violated. This is not normal for a grant, and puts the entire organization's existence in jeopardy if they suddenly find themselves owing millions of dollars that had already been spent.

It's very likely their legal council told them under no circumstances should they accept the terms.

Besides the anti-woke bullshit, it's just a bad idea to accept. It is absolutely not normal for a grant to have stipulations that if you violate some vaguely defined criteria somewhere in your organization, it can be clawed back at a later time. That's a huge liability for an organization to take on that they may suddenly owe a million dollars some time in the future.

Upvotes for curmudgeons.