THEAMU

The Best Windows is Linux XLibre + XCE + Chicago95 + Wine + Steam. Faster, lighter, and better compatibility with Windows software than Windows 11.

Did anyone ever asked what it means for the @SpaceX IPO if the earth is flat?

Good, now make them pay for the app.

Being technically right is the best way to be right. ~ @benjamincowen

THREE THINGS that very clearly demonstrate Dalton’s “Chud the Builder” self defense claims and why I think he’ll be found not guilty on the basis of self defense. A lot of people think this was another one of Dalton’s streams where he poses the “do you believe in free speech” gotcha question and then drops the N bomb on an unsuspecting minority. This is not at all the case, and it’s important in the context of his claim of self defense and whether or not Dalton PROVOKED the altercation. The first point is that Joshua Fox initiated contact. The story, as we know it so far, is that as Dalton was leaving the courthouse Joshua Fox recognized Dalton and starting pointing, laughing, and calling out to him. Joshua knew who Dalton was, recognized him in public, and made the initial move to invoke some sort of interaction between the two by taunting Dalton from across the street. Dalton then walked over to Joshua and, while we do not know the context of that conversation for certain, allegedly, Dalton only attempted to make small talk before Joshua told him to get on and to go away. This the second point - Dalton walked away. Dalton left Joshua, crossed the street back to the courthouse. At this point, the interaction was over and finished. However, Joshua Fox followed Dalton across the street and directly approached him. Then according to Dalton’s testimony, Joshua threatened Dalton by saying something to the effect of “I am a combat veteran. You’re not going to be saying all that “chimpin out” shit around me.” This is a clear verbal threat of physical harm. Dalton then says to Joshua, “Oh so you ARE chimping out?”. This is when Joshua punches Dalton in the face, knocks him onto the ground, and continues to strike Dalton. Dalton, 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥, fired shots, striking Joshua in the stomach and shoulder and sending another round into his own arm. The last shot further demonstrates the compromised position that Joshua had Dalton in and will undoubtedly be used as justification for Daltons fear of serious bodily harm or death. This was not “Joshua threw one punch and Dalton shot three times”. Dalton was sucker punched in the face and Joshua continued to assault him after being knocked down. This is exactly what George Zimmerman was acquitted for as continuing to be struck while on the ground meets the threshold for any reasonable person to believe that serious bodily harm was probable or that their life was in danger. This is when the video of the altercation begins, after the shots were fired, and Dalton wrestles a wounded Joshua over and down onto the ground. Cops break them up immediately after. This is when Dalton begins his stream on pump.fun. So, just to be explicitly clear: Dalton was not streaming, trying to provoke people to farm engagement. Dalton was simply walking out of the courthouse and was recognized by someone that had it out for him. Dalton WALKED AWAY. Joshua Fox FOLLOWED AFTER HIM. Joshua Fox assaults Dalton and continues to strike him after Dalton had fallen onto the ground. This is clear and decisive self defense. If it’s found to be not, it will just be another all too common blight on our Justice system.

Apple and Google are gradually expanding their use of hardware-based attestation. They're convincing a growing number of services to adopt it. Google's Play Integrity API and Apple's App Attest API are very similar. Apple brought it to the web via Privacy Pass, which Google intends on doing too. Google's Play Integrity API requires hardware attestation for the strong integrity level and is gradually phasing in requiring it for the more commonly used device integrity level. Apple already has it as a requirement. Over the long term, this will increasingly lock out hardware and OS competition. The purpose of these systems is disallowing people from using hardware and software not approved by Apple or Google. This is wrongly presented as being a security feature. Banks and government services are the main ones adopting it but Apple and Google are encouraging every service to use it. Apple's Privacy Pass brought hardware attestation to the web to help with passing captchas on their own hardware. Many people saw that as harmless since few sites would be willing to lock out non-Apple-hardware users. Apple and Google are both likely to bring broader hardware attestation to the web. Google's reCAPTCHA is planning an approach where they use Privacy Pass on Apple hardware, their own approach on Google Mobile Services Android devices and a QR code scanning system to require an iOS or Google certified Android device for Windows and other systems: support.google.com/recaptcha/answ… Banking and government services increasingly require using a mobile app where they can use attestation to force using an Apple or Google approved device and OS. Apple's privacy pass, Google's 'cancelled' Web Environment Integrity and now reCAPTCHA Mobile Verification are bringing this to the web. Current media coverage for reCAPTCHA Mobile Verification misunderstands it and the impact of it. They're bringing a hardware attestation requirement to Windows, desktop Linux, OpenBSD, etc. by requiring a QR scan from a certified smartphone to pass reCAPTCHA in some cases. They could expand it more. Control over reCAPTCHA puts Google in a position where they can require having either iOS or a certified Android device to use an enormous amount of the web. Google defines certification requirements for Android which includes forcing bundling Google Chrome, etc. It's enormously anti-competitive. Google's Play Integrity API bans using GrapheneOS despite it being far more secure than anything they permit. It also bans using any other alternative. This isn't somehow specific to an AOSP-based OS. You can't avoid this by using a mobile OS based on FreeBSD instead. You'll just be more locked out. Google's Play Integrity API permits devices with no security patches for 10 years. The device integrity level can be bypassed via spoofing but they can detect it quite well and block it once it starts being done at scale. The strong integrity level requires leaked keys from TEEs/SEs to bypass it. It doesn't provide a useful security feature, but it does lock out competition very well. Services requiring Apple App Attest or Google Play Integrity are primarily helping to lock in Apple and Google having a duopoly for mobile devices. Play Integrity is more relevant due to AOSP being open source. Governments are increasingly mandating using Apple's App Attest and Google's Play Integrity for not only their own services but also commercial services. The EU is leading the charge of making these requirements for digital payments, ID, age verification, etc. Many EU government apps require them. Instead of governments stopping Apple and Google from engaging in egregiously anti-competitive behavior, they're directly participating in locking out competition via their own services. Requiring people to have an Apple device or Google-certified Android device is anti-competition, not security. reCAPTCHA Mobile Verification will currently work with sandboxed Google Play on GrapheneOS but it clearly exists to provide a way for them to start using hardware attestation on systems without it. People without an iOS or Android device will be locked out when this is required even without that. This isn't about security or any missing functionality. GrapheneOS can be verified via hardware attestation. Google bans using GrapheneOS for Play Integrity because we don't license Google Mobile Services and conform to anti-competitive rules already found to be illegal in South Korea and elsewhere. Services shouldn't ban people from using arbitrary hardware and operating systems in the first place. Google's security excuse is clearly bogus when they permit devices with no patches for 10 years but not a much more secure OS. It's for enforcing their monopolies via GMS licensing, that's all.

@Ledger @IrishBitcoinBro By the way, I'd like to thank you for the 2020 customer data breach. I'm still getting tons of spam emails and calls.

@zerohedge Source?

Cramer bearish on gold. Phew

Censored fingerprints. Because I'm not stupid enough to post my biometric data on the internet for EVERYONE TO STEAL (－‸ლ)

Hong Kong just made it a crime to refuse to unlock your phone for police. Up to a year in prison. It applies to everyone, including tourists and people on connecting flights through the airport...

@sahajsarup The Linux kernel is a fundamentally anti-security project. It started as a rejection of a more robust and secure OS design. It continues being nearly entirely written in a memory unsafe language where tiny mistakes lead to endless severe vulnerabilities. lore.kernel.org/linux-cve-anno…

Art folks got rugged on this one RIP

@apsk32 This guy @th3amu however nailed it x.com/th3amu/status/…

@z0nkr @th3amu legend

@PeterLBrandt @The_JDK99 Banans work different depending on on their size. Small smiling bananas are corrective, small sad face bananas are bullish.

BTW, I must give credit to @The_JDK99 for developing the coding I use to show the Bitcoin Parabolic Banana They are a must follow

I see 3 possible futures for @EvgenyGaevoy and @wintermute_t 1. Get class action sued by founders for selling SAFT's they legally can't sell 2. Blow up like 3AC unable to cover naked shorts 3. Ended by IRS for selling securities to US persons

In anyone wonders how 3AC worked and how @wintermute_t works right now.