Proton says they care about security and privacy but at the same time makes it impossible to use your own keys or properly export the original emails from your inbox. I really can't take this suggestion seriously.
Last I checked that tool reordered all the headers (which destroys a lot of forensic value amongst other issues) and neither should such a tool be the only way to get (supposedly) good exports.
Both the IMAP bridge and web interface should provide original unmodified emails upon request.
That's not a good argument. The easiest way to undermine security of everyone is to allow portability of keys features. Look for example at where Signal fails and for no benefit to a normal user.
Current email encryption schemes provide no forward security, it's nothing like Signal. Key management has to work totally different.
You're also wrong in the aspect that it would undermine something, you can absolutely export keys from Protonmail, you just can't use your own keys properly. You can't remove all the keys they have generated, you can't use your own client with your own keys, the bridge literally mucks it up. The defaults can be what they are, it's not mutually exclusive in any way.
In the end this restriction undermines the security and privacy for everyone that want to use secure hardware storage. Which is absolutely insane for a service that boasts about these things.
I didn't critique their security model, I said you wanting greater convenience to exfiltrate keys and documents, even if its to a system that is more secure for you, is not arguing for better security and privacy in their product.
Your comment makes no sense. You can already export all the keys Protonmail generates (which I don't want to use and neither should I be forced to use). Not allowing the user to use their own provides absolutely no resistance to any kind of exfiltration.
>> Proton says they care about security and privacy but at the same time makes it impossible to use your own keys or properly export the original emails from your inbox. I really can't take this suggestion seriously.
They shamefully don't care about security and privacy because you can't get anti privacy capabilities working to your satisfaction.
You apparently could have lead with a lot of valid complaints but your 'shame' isn't really consistent with what you actually want.
It's statistically significant because there is a difference in outcome between the group receiving treatment and the one that did not which could not be attributed to chance alone, but the difference isn't clinically significant because it was a very small difference (in statistics, this is sometimes also referred to as the _effect size_)
Wouldn't any statistically significant improvement become clinically significant when applied at a large enough scale, e.g. in global clinical practice?
Thanks, we really need to bring a bit of balance and data to this topic like this. The hype is certainly real, while the data so far aren't backing this up.
I'm afraid that the public interest in legalisation of psychedelics, motivated by positive experiences in recreational use, leads to a skewed narrative around their health benefits, as a means to open the door for their gradual acceptance and legalisation. This happened to marijuana as well, where health benefits of marijuana were grossly exaggerated to open the door to its legalisation, with medical marijuana as a segway. Marijuana can be harmful and abused, so even though I'm all for legalisation, people should have a balanced view of the benefits and risks to make more informed decisions. Luckily the risk and abuse profile of psychedelics is (much) lower than that of marijuana.
Offered not in the spirit of heartless pedantry but in honest hope that the English language isn’t so egregiously plastic as to allow brand propaganda to take over where etymology left off, I feel the need to point out that a Segway is a rather unusual mode of transport, while a segue is a smooth transition from one theme to another.
I'd rather they add up. Minus -5% runtime there, another -5% there... Soon enough, python will be so fast my scripts terminate before I even run them, allowing me to send messages to my past self.
log(2)÷log(1.1) ~= 7.27, so in principle sustained 10% improvements could double performance every 7 releases. But at some point we're bound to face diminishing returns.
Hey thanks! It's still in its infancy and isn't something I use as part of my daily routine yet, but that's certainly the goal and direction I'm marching towards :) Hope you keep it in mind as it grows.
