Probably in the way as every single online source/influencer/social media user.

OP, a term you may find useful is ricing. This is the sub-community of Linux users who focus on customizing their desktops. You can look at the unixporn subreddit to see examples of how much a DE can be customized.

Ex:

This is KDE Plasma

This is also KDE Plasma

This is also a, very customized, KDE Plasma

(video)https://www.reddit.com/r/unixporn/comments/1w2afj0/kde_my_2nd_ever_linux_rice/

Another is dotfiles or dots, ricers will sometimes make their .config files available for other users. (Be careful here, this can include hidden malicious scripts and such uglies. Use your best judgement).

You tax strike for political purposes.

I tax strike because I’m broke af.

We are not the same

This is a pretty standard tactic of offering your service at a rate that nobody can match in order to ensure that no competition can enter the market.

In 2-3 years those free accounts will turn into paid accounts and all of the other fun ‘upgrades’ brought by enshittification.

It looks like grey goo and skynet are competing to see who will be the next apocalypse.

Hello fellow Californians

“Under observation, we act less free, which means we effectively are less free.”

-Edward Snowden

They think the problem is AI, when it’s actually capitalism and securities fraud.

It’s much simpler to fixate on the technology than to have to understand complex things like economics and history.

The Western model was doomed to failure from the start. The only barrier to entry was being able to download thousands of TBs of internet archives/books and to have a lot of compute.

The math for these models isn’t proprietary and most CS students are exposed to machine learning and neural networks while in school.

The only advantage western companies had was the ability to buy up the entire hardware market, pricing out domestic competition, and to use their politicians to manipulate trade policy in order to restrict sales of critical hardware to China.

Every US tech company has dumped billions investing in an unsustainable business model with the hope of buying a global monopoly by strangling competition.

China can destroy all of that by making their models open weight. The real money is in finding and implementing custom AI solutions… not in charging for access to the models. By having freely available models, they’re making the barrier of entry as low as possible.

Not to mention that the insane amount of money being poured into hardware by US tech companies has created an environment where building fabs has a much shorter ROI, which also helps China’s development in that sector.

US companies are playing Monopoly while China is playing Civilization.

That being said, what the law says and what some random asshole does during a stop are not always the same thing.

Depends

Most phones can be accessed by forensic software. The more secure phones are protected as long as they’ve just been restarted but before they’re unlocked for the first time.

Some phones, like an up-to-date GrapheneOS on a supported Pixel, may resist forensic imaging after first unlocking but the information is in memory so there could potentially be zero days or other exotic methods of obtaining the data.

A duress wipe lets you know 100% that the data is not accessible.

It probably won’t work, at least (US)domestically. The requirement for obtaining a warrant before searching a phone is part of training because there is a clear Supreme Court ruling to that effect.

That being said, what the law says and what some random asshole does during a stop are not always the same thing.

In addition, the law that he’s charged with relates to knowingly destroying property that the police have a warrant to sieze.

There is no precedent of it being applied to border searches where they may not even have reasonable suspicion of a crime and can stop people for questioning on a whim.

The State has absolutely no claim over your personal property at that point and destroying property that the police hope and dream of siezing isn’t the same as destroying property where they’ve demonstrated probable cause to a judge.

This argument from the border patrol that you can be arrested for destroying data that is in your possession without ever been given due process and 4th amendment protections isn’t supported by precedence.

Their mood isn’t your responsibility. Carrying a blank phone is perfectly legal.

Write the duress PIN on a piece of paper in your wallet. Someone searching your phone is probably also searching your wallet and may try the PIN.

The profiles are independently encrypted with a key derived from the user’s profile PIN. If the other profiles are not logged in then their keys are not in RAM (and they get zeroed beforehand so they can’t be read out of unallocated memory).

Even if the bad guys get root via a LPE in a dummy account there are no keys to find and the profiles’ storage are not mounted.

You couldn’t trust the device after that however, who knows what kind of persistent spyware they could have installed.

Exactly!

Anyone who has spent any time on social media could tell you that this is more of a ‘feelings’ topic than a ‘facts’ topic.

You could say the same about drug cartels and most governments spend billions of dollars fighting them while outlawing their products and sanctioning countries/governments which allow them.

I don’t expect the US Navy is going to be launching missiles at programmers in speedboats anytime soon, but it would be easy to sanction these companies and cut them off from the banking system.

Except the government is run by people in the pockets of the companies and countries who are doing this.

Why do we even allow these ‘businesses’ to exist?

It’s like someone started up a company where you could hire them to break into people’s houses for you. There are no ethical uses of the software that they create, they are entirely used for illegal activity and in support of oppressive governments.

They’re selling cyberweapons without any kind of regulations or restrictions.

I’m sure that case will be cited here.

In similar cases, the court has found the company liable for using the books without paying for them (so they had to pay for every individual book) but the process of training an AI model was ‘sufficiently transformative’ (see: Authors Guild v Google) so as to not be considered a copyright violation.

They may win damages equal to the costs of the books that were used, but they won’t get the models deleted or be able to claim damages for the models that were created.