I went to look for the video and somehow was worse than I had imagined.

They have millions in funding, they will always move at a faster pace. The question is in which direction they will move, I suppose.

I guess a bunch of things, as they are specialized apps:

• proper auth. I think with Firefox you can have a password, but a password manager will have multiple options for 2fa including security keys, and on phone fingerprint unlock etc. In general, password managers are more resistant to malicious users gaining access to your device.
• store all kinds of stuff. Not everything happens in the browser, and it's just convenient to have an app just for credentials. Many password managers allow to store and autofill credit cards too, for example.
• on the fly generation of aliases. Password managers have external integrations. For example proton and bitwarden can integrate with simplelogin.io to generate email aliases when you choose to generate a new username.
• org-like features. Password managers can be also convenient for sharing with family (for example). I do manage a bitwardes organization used by all my immediate family, which means I can share credentials easily with any of them. Besides the sharing I can also ensure my (not tech savvy mom) won't lock herself out (emergency breakglass access configurable) and technically enforce policies on password strength etc.
• as banal as it is, self-managing. I like to run my own services and running my own password manager with my own backups gives me peace of mind.
• another perhaps obvious point. More compatibility? I can use my password manager on whatever device, whatever browser. For some, it might not change anything, but it's a convenient feature.

As a personal addition, I would say that I simply want the cornerstone of my online security to be a product for a company that is specialized in doing that. I have no idea how much effort goes into the password manager from Mozilla, for example.

This whole thing happened while a young woman is in power. This has to do with submission to economic power, not with gender and age.

They have literally an explanation for this on their website. You might disagree, but saying "it makes no sense"...makes no sense.

Also, they discontinued the earbuds and still no jack on FP5, so the idea that "they wanted to sell their own buds" doesn't seem to be likely.

I stopped hearing discussions about it long ago. I suppose the thing died down.

One thing I will never understand is their endless complaint about moderation tools. They had/have a decent amount of donation, why they didn't just put a bounty on the features they needed in github and encourage contributions in that space (if not contributing directly)? It feels like it was sterile criticism when they had/have the means to actually work on the solution.

EDIT: Adding to the above. From their opencollective page, they are in +6k$. Even 1000$ on a feature and I think plenty of people will want to contribute. Considering that they were complaining about a handful of features, I don't see how it was not feasible. That will both give back to the developers and get them where they are. Win-win...?

tl;dr, yes, it does.

Containers are nothing like VMs, and containers in Linux are basically a combination of a feature called Cgroups, which allows to restrict the resources (like memory, etc.) available to a process or group of processes, and namespaces. Namespaces are a construct in which certain namespaced resources are separated from each other, and processes can only see those belonging to their namespace. A simple example is a mount namespace. When you launch a container, you see a / directory which is not the root directory of your system.

Now, the problem is, that not all the resources are namespaced, so there is still quite a lot that processes within containers can do interacting with the main system resources, especially if they are root.

A root process within a container generally can do lots of things that the actual root process can do outside of it. For example, mounting parts of the filesystem (if you run with --privileged), loading kernel modules, etc. Podman can run rootless, in the sense that it uses also User namespaces, meaning a user 0 (root) inside a container is actually mapped to something else outside, but also docker nowadays can do the same.

So yeah, in general, running the applications with the less amount of privileges is a good idea and you should do it whenever you can. Even if you do need some privileges, you should add only the Capabilities needed, not just go straight to root.

Privacy and anonimity are different things. As long as nobody besides you and the indented destination(s) has access to the content of your communication, that communication maintains privacy, even if everyone sees that it's you talking.

Also, and this is something I mention all the time, the only information this gives is that you use signal. Besides that, as soon as anybody else registered your phone in their contact list, your phone number is already known and associated with you considering that many apps (like all the meta ones) gain access to the contact list and the chance that anybody who has your phone number uses one of those is almost 100%.

But it is an asshole move to show up to an event meant for one group of people when the original issue is how over represented your group is. I’m a developer. The grind sucks. But I would be an asshole to show up to this.

If I was out of job, I would honestly care less about the fact that "my group" is over represented. There is no white male lobby that pays my mortgage. That said, I - as in the actual me - would not go to such event either, but that's also because I wouldn't go to any job fair atm since I don't need a job.

The whole landscape of health trackers is depressing. I bought a fitbit last year as I could expend it at work, and I ended up leaving it in a drawer exactly for the uneasy feeling of sharing very sensitive data. Health data is probably the most impactful on personal lives (insurances, banks, etc.), and it's astonishing to me how it's too much to ask to a company that makes watches to have watches as their mine business model.

I understand sharing data for further analysis etc., but I should be able to use my health tracker locally, only talking to my phone app and nothing else, similar to how gadgetbridge works. I was eyeing banglejs specifically to be able to do this, even though it's not really a health tracker.

All other religious symbols are also banned (in schools), so this argument seems pretty weak. One can agree or disagree, but considering religion a private matter that should stay out of the public buildings is a perfectly legitimate stance, in my opinion.

I think it sees that the browser is trying to execute code that is suspicious (the payload of the XSS was pretty obvious).