jax

Proton kept popping up massively recommended while some occasional critical mentions from folks in anarchist circles, etc - made me a bit 🤨 and want to dig in more,

No surprise that folks in anarchist circles are skeptical of Proton ha. That said, I do know quite a few people in the email "industry" who are broadly skeptical of Proton's general philosophy/approach to email security, and the way they market their service/offerings.

Others I poked into are fastmail and tuta - both seem a fair bit better. Might be worth a look

Fastmail has a great interface and user experience imo, significantly better than any other web client I've tried. That said, they're not end-to-end encrypted, so they're not really trying to fill the same niche as Proton/Tuta.

From their website:

Fastmail customers looking for end-to-end encryption can use PGP or s/mime in many popular 3rd party apps. We don’t offer end-to-end encryption in our own apps, as we don’t believe it provides a meaningful increase in security for most users...

If you don’t trust the server, you can’t trust it to load uncompromised code, so you should be using a third party app to do end-to-end encryption, which we fully support. And if you really need end-to-end encryption, we highly recommend you don’t use email at all and use Signal, which was designed for this kind of use case.

I honestly don't know enough to separate the wheat from the chaff here (I can barely write functional python scripts lol - so please chime in if I'm completely off base), but this comes across to me as an understandable (and fairly honest) compromise, that is probably adequate for some threat models?

Last time I used Tuta the user experience was pretty clunky, but afaik it is E2EE, so it's probably a better direct alternative to Proton.

In the land down under, the ABC continues to feed us with golden tech takes: Australia might be snoozing through the AI 'gold rush'

"This is the largest gold rush in the history of capitalism and Australia is missing out," said Artificial Intelligence professor Toby Walsh, from the University of New South Wales.

It's even bigger than the actual gold rush! Buy your pans now folks!

One option Professor Van Den Hengel suggests is building our own Large Language Model like OpenAI's ChatGPT from the ground up, rather than being content to import the tech for decades to come.

lol, but also please god no

"The only way to have a say in what happens globally in this critical space is to be an active participant," he said.

mate, I think that ship might have already sailed

Hello, and welcome!

I also desperately need a place where people know what a neoreactionary is so I can more easily complain about them so I’d like to hang around longer term too.

Sounds like you're in the right place. Please complain as much as you need, so we can all scream, sigh and sneer into the void in unison.

for my first project I use the Alex Garland TV show Devs

I haven't read your piece yet, because I'd like to watch devs, unspoiled, at some point, but have bookmarked to come back to at a later point :)

nsfw: nice to see thejuicemedia jumping in with a quality sneer

NYT opinion piece title: Effective Altruism Is Flawed. But What’s the Alternative? (archive.org)

lmao, what alternatives could possibly exist? have you thought about it, like, at all? no? oh...

(also, pet peeve, maybe bordering on pedantry, but why would you even frame this as singular alternative? The alternative doesn't exist, but there are actually many alternatives that have fewer flaws).

You don’t hear so much about effective altruism now that one of its most famous exponents, Sam Bankman-Fried, was found guilty of stealing $8 billion from customers of his cryptocurrency exchange.

Lucky souls haven't found sneerclub yet.

But if you read this newsletter, you might be the kind of person who can’t help but be intrigued by effective altruism. (I am!) Its stated goal is wonderfully rational in a way that appeals to the economist in each of us...

rational_economist.webp

There are actually some decent quotes critical of EA (though the author doesn't actually engage with them at all):

The problem is that “E.A. grew up in an environment that doesn’t have much feedback from reality,” Wenar told me.

Wenar referred me to Kate Barron-Alicante, another skeptic, who runs Capital J Collective, a consultancy on social-change financial strategies, and used to work for Oxfam, the anti-poverty charity, and also has a background in wealth management. She said effective altruism strikes her as “neo-colonial” in the sense that it puts the donors squarely in charge, with recipients required to report to them frequently on the metrics they demand. She said E.A. donors don’t reflect on how the way they made their fortunes in the first place might contribute to the problems they observe.

this is most certainly a clerical error