Telegram never was private, group chats never were encrypted (and that's not an opinion: the feature simply is missing). If anything, they are just removing their false and deceiving claims. That they remained there for so long is something I can't wrap my head around.

I'd like to share your optimism, but what you suggest leaving us to "deal with" isn't "AI" (which has been present in web search for decades as increasingly clever summarization techniques...) but LLMs, a very specific and especially inscrutable class of AI which has been designed for "sounding convincing", without care for correctness or truthfulness. Effectively, more humans' time will be wasted reading invented or counterfeit stories (with no easy way to tell); first-hand information will be harder to source and acknowledge by being increasingly diluted into the AI-generated noise.

I also haven't seen any practical advantage to using LLM prompts vs. traditional search engines in the general case: you end up typing more, for the sake of "babysitting" the LLM, and get more to read as a result (which is, again, aggravated by the fact that you are now given a single source/one-sided view on the matter, without citation, reference nor reproducible step to this conclusion).

Last but not least, LLMs are an environmental disaster in the making, the computational cost is enormous (in new hardware and electricity), and we are at a point where all companies partaking in this new gold rush are selling us a solution in need of a problem, every one of them having to justify the expenditure (so far, none is making a profit out of it, which is the first step towards offsetting the incurred pollution).

I agree with the sentiment and everything, but the whole gaming console industry has gone to crap after they started putting hard drives/storage in them with the goal of needing you to be online and not owning anything anymore. They are all equally despicable for that. Which makes emulation even more essential, just for preserving those games into the future when the online front will inexorably shut down.

If you are curious, you should give XMPP a shot, it's equivalent to Signal in terms of encryption, but anyone can host their own. Signal is ideologically opposed to anyone but themselves being in control of your account, and because of that I don't want to trust them.

Signal isn't a federated protocol, so even if they were incentivized to release all the server bits and pieces, it would not help. You could run your own, but wouldn't be able to reach-out to your friends running theirs.

A more accurate title could be "Privacy is Priceless, but Centralization is Expensive": with the era of cheap money coming to an end, grows a lot of uncertainty regarding the future of some large internet services. Signal is no exception and this emphasises the importance of federated alternatives (XMPP, fediverse, …) for the good health of the future internet.

Or, you know, just use key auth only and fail2ban. Putting sshd behind another port only buys you a little time.

That's absolutely true in the physical sense, but in the "commercial"/practical sense, most respectable companies' QA process would shave off a large part of that first bathtub slope through testing and good quality practices. Not everything off of the assembly line is meant to make it into a boxed up product.

As soon as you put something up online, you will de facto become a target with nowhere to hide except offline. Your IP will be known and constantly hammered by more or less serious threats.

If you don't know the basics of Linux system administration and typical security measures, I would propose 2 approaches: you can go "the NAS way" and purchase something turnkey like a Synology (or anything on which you can easily spin up containers to host your services). You can expect a large part of the administration to be taken care of with sound default settings.

Another approach is to use a beginner friendly distro like https://yunohost.org/ , perhaps more involving, more risky, bit more rewarding.

Also, don't put anything up there like personal or valuable information (except if encrypted with local-only keys), expect to be hacked, expect to be wiped, and think early on about (off-site) backups.

IMO Scala is one of the best programming languages out there. I know it might sound like zealotry because Scala is already way past its hype curve, and the "Through of disillusionment" already caught a fair bunch in ways that more recent and hyped languages haven't yet, but it's not only still very relevant today, but more and more so (IMO).

So, what's to like about Scala? Like most of things, those are two-edged swords:

1- multi paradigm

To my knowledge Scala is the only language that unifies object oriented programming and functional programming so seamlessly. You can pick the right tool for the job, opting for imperative-style where it's fit and choosing elegant composable/curried when appropriate, without having to bend your mind as much as you would with Haskell/clojure/OCaml/F#/… where things are more one-sided. The downside is that different programmers will have different takes and preferences as to what's the most adequate style might be, and a same codebase might look very different from one place to the other.

2- type system

Scala has one of the most advanced type system. Nothing Rust or Kotlin might match any time soon, or ever. Scala's implementation of GADTs, combined with its powerful pattern matching enables concise and idiomatic abstractions. Many of which are zero-cost thanks to things like opaque types, inlining, tail recursion, … There is a whole area of the Scala community striving to make invalid states irrepresentable (your code won't compile if your instance of a pizza is missing a topping), which makes such libraries self-documenting and easy to use. The downside is that nothing prevents you from climbing the abstraction ladder and encoding everything in the type system when all you need is a simple trait/generic, and that's a human/complexity management problem tooling and the language can hardly mitigate.

3- scalable

The author of Scala (who was a long-time Java compiler architect) wanted Scala to scale from shells one liners to complex multi-cluster distributed systems, and delivered on that. You can start small with a scala-cli proof of concept, transition to a mid-scale "python with types" kind of project, and grow up to very large and complex projects. Beyond the JVM, you can target the browser with scala-js and share models and validation logic between the front and back ends. You can target native binaries for instant startup/low footprint executables that are cheap to spin-up as microservices.

4- has a foothold in academics

A whole team at the EPFL is pushing boundaries of programming languages and using Scala and its compiler as a ground for experimentations. Scala 3 has a proven sound type system thanks to its foundations on the DOT calculus. Effects and Capabilities are being researched as part of the project Caprese to offer a solution to "what color is your function" (mixing sync and async), of memory management/lifecycles (more generic than rustc's), of pure/side-effectful code, etc. The downside is that this gives an impression that Scala's development lacks focus, but arguably those happen in distinct development branches and by different people.

Anyway, feel free to continue the discussion on: [email protected]

[email protected]

Also, fun fact, Facebook messenger was XMPP compatible at some point, and just like Google, they eventually shut down federation to the detriment of the XMPP users as soon as they became close enough to a monopoly

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9266769

Before this devolves into a flame war, here's for you the introductory paragraph

Disclaimer: I’m aware that Richard Stallman had some questionable or inadequate behaviours. I’m not defending those nor the man himself. I’m not defending blindly following that particular human (nor any particular human). I’m defending a philosophy, not the philosopher. I claim that his historical vision and his original ideas are still adequate today. Maybe more than ever.

That said, I only see valid points here. For a long time, I too had a preference for MIT-style of licenses, thinking that they would "at least give a chance for a major business to embrace and extend, for the benefit of the open-source world", win-win, right?

Fast-forward, it's now pretty clear how the corporate world used the open-source movement to consolidate its monopoly, common good shouldn't get privatized, and large corporations don't have your best interest at heart.