Being open source is technically not required to verify this. It’s possible to prove or disprove security claims by reverse engineering, and iOS specifically is already a popular target for professional/academic RE.
Of course, a hardware switch is always more secure.
> Back when decent civilization was a thing, there were rules of engagement, conduct, the pursuit of security, and strategic goals which didn't include active genocide of civilians.
What period of human history are you referring to exactly?
Most countries' broadest defined benefit pensions are just simple wealth redistribution schemes from workers to non workers as opposed to being paid from funds that were previously invested.
In the USA, Social Security defined benefit pensions are cash from workers today going to non workers today, same as Germany's national scheme (gesetzliche Rentenversicherung?).
The other defined benefit benefit pension schemes are what are usually invested in equities, and the investment restrictions section in this document indicate Germany's "occupational pensions" can also invest in equities. (page 12)
There's distinction between legality, reality and morality. Most of the time no one uses full formal legal terms in normal conversation.
I don't support AfD, I'm not German either - i just agree with parent poster's observation that for some reason left extremism(and I'm talking actual eco-terrorism for example) is more widely 'accepted' in public space when talking to Germans. Meanwhile mentioning even slightly Right ideas gets you lynched, and any form of discussions stops.
And from small sample size of Germans i know, this is the reason that did push quite few of those people towards AfD.
Frankly AfD is a perfect marker of your own policy making - are more people pushed towards it? you probably are doing something severely wrong as a policymaker.
I believe the far right starts winning when it attracts not just the types it naturally attracts all the time but more mid field folks as well. People who you don't get to your side by saying they're facists or other accusatory statements.
I've heard plenty of times from such people that they've felt the government/establishment parties have made my bordering country less safe for women, gay people, etc and now numbers are also starting to show that.
Pair that with those parties targeting those votes more and more and bringing in some more gays and women into the party and labels of mysoginist or homofobic that you used don't work to attack the far right anymore
I've found gay people voting for the supposedly homofobic far right because they start to see their main talking points as a long term existential matter.
Prisons that have a huge share of non nationals and are overfilled so prison strikes and shutdowns happen aren't helping either.
The economical picture for non-eu migration has been abysmal too.
The list goes on and on.
Even in france le pen who's father had some well known extreme views about gays she draws a lot of votes among gay men. Especially in Paris.
>At that point you seriously, seriously fucked up.
I think we've realistically introduced a source of political hubris for generations to come and created a scenario where if we're not being too optimistic about the perfect path being taken there will be sharp edges whichever way you go.
The same happened here in the past with our flemish/wallonian sectarianism that should've never been started and inflamed. In fact over many decades migration seems to be the only thing that managed to overtake it.
Acknowledge issues and start doing stuff these parties have been calling for for the past 2 decades to stop influx and you legitimize their ideas and admit fault in some ways.
Don't do anything, continue the status quo claiming everything smells of roses and you just build up more sectarian bullshit.
Ideally you slow migration down without too much noise about it imo. For example you adjust treaties so that people rejected in other european countries can be sent back and actually follow trough and employ european political power to actually facilitate this sending back and discourages staying in a way that was possible in the past. You start limiting family reunion schemes depending on the country, etc
Additionally you invest hard in integration and not in the weird paternalistic shit that i hear about from germany now.
If I remember wel here in Belgium in 2005 or so well over 70% had big concerns about migration and had it in their top 3 issues. That was 2 decades ago well before the big influxes. Not losing many of them was easier than getting them back that's for sure but there's plenty more still on that edge. I'd also say we're doing way worse than Germany on these fronts and additionally a far greater share of german migration is actually refugees i believe.
The only reason we haven't had an afd equivalent governing yet is how fractured our political landscape is when compared and the flemish/wallonian split.
My guess for the future btw is that none of this will happen here and instead social trust will get worse and it will also be used as an excuse/force pushing to build down social security more regardless of who wins (like in denmark i believe).
Looking at your other responses in this thread was anything other than what could be twisted as "changing "my side" to be a little fascistic" or 'continue on as is being done now' a valid answer?
To also answer one i didn't address : 'What is to be done with the overlaps, e.g. people that are homosexuals but are racists, people from racial minorities that are homophobic, and so on?'
The later if not a national you could in many cases not let/keep in your country or otherwise give citizenship.
As for the later it just happens that i know a lesbian VB (our far right) advocate. She was a callbus driver that got attacked for her sexuality.
It's not the average but someone you are unlikely to ever win back regardless of whether you typify her as racist or xenophobe or not because she sees "your side" as the origin of the former, the unintended champion of islamists and the like.
If we were to categorize AfD voters and supporters into two groups:
1. people that support some of: racism, xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny, anti-environmentalism, etc., i.e. authoritarianism for their group
2. people that have been pushed by extreme leftism because they can no longer discuss alternative points of view (but do not strictly belong to group 1)
majority in 2, due to worsening economic situation over the years and total disappointment in current options with no other option to break this impasse than to throw hand grenade into the mix.
exactly one person in first group - a genuine belief in efficiency of authoritarian system from someone on spectrum.
I also love how you neatly divided whole political spectrum into two, and bundled a lot of options into 'bad' category. Another example of political tribalism. while option "2" is clearly 'misguided' one.
For example anti-environmentalism can be seen from 'does not like Greens', through 'i think we should reevaluate our energy policy for feasibility of moving to renewables/nuclear and do a slow transition while persevering our beautiful nature' to 'we should only burn coal and gas forever'.
Same thing with xenophobia - it can be pure nationalism, or being anti illegal immigration while supporting legal one, or even just idea that government has responsibility for their own citizens first and foremost. Which one do you have in mind?
Where you draw the barriers between those arbitrary labels?
is there even anything i could say that would change your mind, or are you looking for validation of your views only?
Let's remove "anti green" and "anti immigration" (but not pure xenophobia) out of group 1, since you seem to protest those two as the most ambiguous (I do agree that those areas may be too blurry).
I also think you misinterpreted "authoritarianism for their group", or I expressed it poorly. I don't mean "support of authoritarian governments", but rather "give more power to their group over others, or favor keeping such a status quo", in the context of race, sexuality, gender, culture, etc.
Yes, group 2 may be protest voters, and their rationale is that the best protest against some leftist policies and monologue is to vote the right - not blank, not abstention, and not some void middle-ground. Of course!
But these people are not complete idiots that forgot what the AfD obviously stands for. Thus, I cannot reasonably believe that they ALL fall under NONE of the categories of 1.
My most generous concession would be 20%, but realistically I would say there is maybe at most 5% that is purely protest and not at least one of: racist, xenophobic, homophobic, misogynist.
Simply put: If someone claims they are not racist, and not homophobic, and not misogynist, yet they still vote for AfD, then they are more likely to be some of that, or are okay with the current status of discriminations, and not some naive idiot.
What you could say to change my mind, is how someone votes/supports AfD purely based on e.g. strengthened immigration policies for purely economical reasons, or "do not like greens", or "just wants nuclear". I don't understand how someone could be so oblivious to the other standpoints, but maybe this is just my personal bias?
> Or the literal communist party, Die Linke. Why are they never referred to as the extreme left.
It's definitely not true that people never refer to Die Linke as extreme left. In fact, all kinds of people - including prominent politicians from e.g. the CDU - refer to Die Linke as extreme left.
This is not commenting on whether that is a correct moniker or not, I'm just pointing out that your dichotomy is nonsensical because the thing that you suggest to not be happening absolutely is happening.
Feel free to read the chapter „Linksextremismus“. It talks about various violent Antifa groups and other cases. Keep in mind that the definition of „extreme left“ refers to organizations that want to replace the basic democratic system with communism or anarchy (according to the German constitutional court).
It does not necessarily include „political craziness“ that we may disagree with. The point of these legal descriptions of organizations is not to be used as a political weapon for parties you don’t like. You have to do some significantly malicious stuff to be considered as such.
> It talks about various violent Antifa groups and other cases.
As the time of writing, six different extreme left groups are tolerated within Die Linke and are also financed by their members. All of these groups are currently being watched by the government secret service.
The AFD is extreme right in its entirely. It's a political party that wants to deport foreigners, remove the german citizenship from people with a migrational background, and it plans to destroy the democratic political parties - which means toppling democracy. They say so clearly and openly, also calling the other parties "Altparteien".
While the party started with a different background, by now voters and members do know about these majority positions and thus support them.
The greens are not filled with communists. They would feel very unwelcome there, given the capitalist move the party did in the 90s.
Die Linke is also not a communist party. It supports capitalism, but targets a social capitalism, like the CDU did in the 50s and the SPD did until the 80s. There are communist parties in Germany, like the MLPD, but they do not get many votes. Background here is that in a divided Germany the communists were not popular in West germany, also most of them got killed by the Nazis before, and on top of that West Germany banned the main communist party already 1956.
Also, rightwing politicians do call "Die Linke" (incorrectly) extreme left, and accordingly the CDU/CSU has a mandate to never cooperate with them.
> Die Linke is also not a communist party. It supports capitalism, but targets a social capitalism, like the CDU did in the 50s and the SPD did until the 80s.
This is untrue and you will only have to go so far to read their party program to find out it isn't.
1 second google search -> https://www.die-linke.de/partei/programm/ -> Marx's manifesto is cited among the first paragraphs -> the literal first sentence in point 3's second paragraph -> "Our goal of democratic socialism in the 21st century is a society free of domination in which all people can live in dignity." They mention the process of transforming capitalism to state mandated socialism and control of all companies by a democratic process. A democratic socialism is not a social capitalism, they don't support capitalism in any way or form, and they want to actively move away from it, which they also say among the first sentences on this very page.
It took me all of 5 seconds to achieve this enlightenment. You should try it sometimes.
The crux of it is that they are not anti-democratic.
German law tries to protect against anti-democratic groups and categorizes them as extremists (including left wing extremists) if they a threatening democracy.
In practice that means that group is then surveilled. If there is evidence that the group tries to overthrow democracy, they are banned.
Die Linke is in many ways _more_ democratic than other groups and parties as they support direct democracy and workplace democracy.
> The crux of it is that they are not anti-democratic.
Die Linke tolerates antidemocratic hate groups within their party and is a financial sponsor of others. All of this is common knowledge, all of this can be looked up easily.
> Die Linke is in many ways _more_ democratic than other groups and parties as they support direct democracy and workplace democracy.
I know quite a lot of parties that were never once watched by a government watchdog, nor do they continue to support extremist groups, nor do those other parties continue to attract extremists at their demonstrations, nor do those other democratic parties have a continued problem of antisemitism within their ranks, nor do they have a dark past and continue to employ people at high ranks that were leaders in that past.
It's a little bit harder. The problem is that the SPD will also talk about democratic socialism and does indeed just mean social capitalism with that. And depending on who you talk with at the left, there is still the idea to use the power of capitalism, just to remove the negative aspects with various means.
But indeed, the program now does distance itself from social capitalism specifically and gives further reasoning to why. I wasn't aware they spell it out so clearly now. We can still argue about how much capitalism would be left when following their program - like when the means of production are owned differently, but used similarly - but I have to give you a point there. My comment as written was not correct.
All of the code is imported in 1 commit. The rest of the commits are deleting the specs that I guess were used to generate the code. There’s one commit adding code which explicitly says generated by Claude code. There’s basically no chance the whole codebase is not AI slop.
Seems like we have similar thoughts as we wrote more or less the same comment 10 minutes apart :) Would love to chat about this, maybe we figure out a way to get there? Email is on my profile.
> ...so how do you keep it secure?
> Is hosting a RPi in space different from hosting one on the ground, reachable over the public internet? I assume it is, but tell me more!
It is somewhat different from a security point of view, but the gap between them is getting smaller. The main "obstacle" to hackers taking over your satellite is that it is somewhat difficult to set up a UHF/VHF/S-band ground station with enough transmit power to reach the satellite. And you need knowledge of the command protocol that the satellite uses. But ground stations are getting cheaper every day, IMO you can build a fairly capable transmitting setup for ~1000€. So the remaining protection is a form of security by obscurity: "we invented this command protocol, so nobody knows how it works". But that can obviously be defeated by recording ground station signals and some dedicated reverse engineers.
When those protections fall away, you'll find that a lot of satellite/CubeSat software out there is quite vulnerable (see https://jwillbold.com/paper/willbold2023spaceodyssey.pdf). You often find things like commands that are literally "arbitrary memory read/write". While they are a nightmare from a security point of view, they are extremely useful for operators of experimental satellites, e.g. to patch software in memory to fix bugs or read variables that are not exposed as telemetry. I have written a few of these patches myself, and my friend PistonMiner used them brilliantly to hack in a software update capability and revived a 15 year old CubeSat that was assumed to be dead - see their 38C3 talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdTcd94pVlY
If you ask me, the way to keep satellites secure is to basically apply the lessons that we have learned in terrestrial computing to space applications. Things like using encryption/authentication, process isolation backed by a MMU, memory safe languages, etc. That's what we're trying to do with RACCOON OS btw. You can take at the flight software of CyBEEsat, a 1U CubeSat that is launching soon(tm): https://gitlab.com/rccn/missions/cybeesat
> So the remaining protection is a form of security by obscurity: "we invented this command protocol, so nobody knows how it works".
ChaCha20-Poly1305 authenticated encryption is cheap for low-resource systems and trivial to implement. There's no reason not to use some form of encryption, if at least to prevent forged commands. (Preventing replay attacks is left as an exercise to the reader.)
There are some reasons. As a satellite operator, the worst thing that can happen is getting locked out of the satellite for any reason. So the risk of implementing a “new” technology that has a high risk of locking you out if you lose the keys for some reason sometimes outweighs the benefit of increased security. So I think there’s some work to do in building generally applicable key management practices and backup ways of reestablishing a command link.
Embedded guys don't like command authentications, I think because it's an SPoF with probability attached that are repeatedly tried. They know bits flip and program counter skips, and so they even avoid use of "or equals to" conditions for loops. But they're using signature enforcement in cars nowadays, so that particular fear should be slowly subsidizing.
I would imagine the overriding reason people resist encryption is that it’s a pain in the ass.
You have to worry about long term key storage and security. You introduce a whole new class of failure mechanisms. It’s always going to lurk at the bottom of the todo list.
My dream is to build an open source CubeSat kit (hardware, software, mission control software) with an experience similar to Arduino. Download GUI, load up some examples, and you're directly writing space applications. Ideally should be capable of high end functions like attitude control and propulsion. The problem is that designing and testing such a thing is a rather expensive endeavour. So far I haven't found a way to get funds to dedicate time on this kind of "abstract"/generic project, most funding organizations want a specific mission proposal that ends generating useful data from space.
reply