Yeah for sure, I’m just thinking that it can be a little rocky to get governance and contribution processes set up, sometimes those last minute forks flop because the person who decided to advertise their fork ends up being ill equipped to handle running the project. If we can get a libre warden client project working before hand then it’ll make the process a lot more seamless when issues with bitwarden arise.

I’m surprised that nobody has (meaningfully) forked the clients yet, it seems like all the warning signs are there

deleted by creator

Where is that option? I’m only getting the option to create a new document for some reason, and to export documents created on cryptpad to docx. I assumed it was because they only figured out the conversion one way but maybe I’m just missing the button?

Is cryptpad able to open existing docx files? Last time I checked I couldn’t figure out how to do it. I mostly need to edit word documents that people send me, and send them back the same format.

I don’t which is why I use my selfhosted vaultwarden instance to store mine. I refuse to add passkeys to any service if they don’t properly invoke the standard passkey prompt in a way that’s compatible with bitwarden, otherwise I love passkeys and use them everywhere possible as long as I have complete control over them.

I managed to use the reader mode trick to get the text:

Signal warns it would pull out of Canada if made to comply with lawful access bill

Marie Woolf 6 - 8 minutes

Udbhav Tiwari, Signal vice-president of strategy and global affairs, says Ottawa’s Bill C-22 could threaten encryption and make private messaging services a potential target for cyberattacks.

Secure messaging service Signal, which uses end-to-end encryption, is warning it would withdraw from Canada if asked to compromise its users’ privacy under Bill C-22, Ottawa’s proposed lawful access legislation.

In an interview, Udbhav Tiwari, Signal vice-president of strategy and global affairs, said the company has deep concerns about measures in the bill, including its potential to introduce security vulnerabilities.

Mr. Tiwari said that Signal “would rather pull out of the country than be compelled to compromise on the privacy promises we have made to our users.”

He expressed fears that Bill C-22, which is currently being scrutinized by Commons committee, could threaten encryption.

Mr. Tiwari also warned changes to systems required under the bill could make private messaging services a potential target for cyberattacks.

“Bill C-22 could potentially allow hackers to exploit these very vulnerabilities engineered into electronic systems, with private messaging services serving as an ideal target for foreign adversaries,” he added in a text message.

Spy watchdog asks for greater oversight of proposed lawful access regime, including to boost public trust

Signal was founded in 2012 and is not linked to major tech companies. It has millions of Canadian users and is used for secure communication by journalists, dissidents, government agencies, private citizens and politicians.

The bill would require telecoms, internet companies and other electronic service providers to make changes to their systems to give surveillance capabilities to police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to combat threats and criminal activity.

Signal runs on its own centralized servers. The only user data it stores are phone numbers, users’ last login information and the date they joined the service. Users’ contacts, chats and other information are stored by users themselves, on their phones.

The bill would require “core providers” – which would later be defined through regulations – to retain metadata for up to a year.

The metadata would not include e-mails, web-browsing history, social-media activity or text messages, but it could include information about which telephone numbers have been in touch with each other, and data allowing someone’s location to be pinpointed.

“End-to-end encryption is incompatible with exceptional access, no matter how creative the route taken to achieve it,” Mr. Tiwari added in a statement. “Provisions that enable the deliberate engineering of vulnerabilities into critical infrastructure like Signal are a grave threat to privacy everywhere.”

White hat hackers warn lawful access bill could make it easier for criminals to penetrate Canadian systems

Last year, a Signal chat between U.S. national security officials and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth mistakenly included a journalist. The chat specified timings of warplane launches and when bombs would drop in planned attacks on Yemen’s Houthis.

At a Commons committee hearing on Bill C-22 earlier this month, Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree, who introduced the bill, was asked about its impact on encrypted services, and described it as “encryption-neutral.”

Tech companies, including Apple, and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce have warned the lawful access regime proposed by the bill could weaken or break encryption.

Meta, which owns encrypted messaging service WhatsApp, testified earlier this month to a Commons committee examining the bill. Rachel Curran, the tech giant’s head of public policy in Canada, warned that the bill “could conscript private companies into service as an arm of the government’s surveillance apparatus – with expansive scope and insufficient safeguards.”

“As drafted, the bill could require companies like Meta to build or maintain capabilities that break, weaken, or circumvent encryption or other zero-knowledge security architectures, and force providers to install government spyware directly on their systems,” she said.

Simon Lafortune, a spokesperson for Mr. Anandasangaree, said Wednesday: “We want to reassure Signal and all service providers that we are not legislating to require them to install capabilities to enable surveillance and any assertions otherwise are false.”

The broadly worded bill could lead to the rollout of forced metadata collection for messaging apps, said Kate Robertson, a senior research associate at the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab whose expertise includes cybersecurity, state agencies’ use of personal data and surveillance activities.

Ms. Robertson said that when recently pressed to commit to protection for encryption, “government officials were reticent.”

“Encrypted communication systems are a lifeline for human rights defenders, journalists and dissidents around the world,” she said.

Matt Hatfield, director of OpenMedia, a non-profit that advocates for widespread and affordable internet access, said “Signal, WhatsApp and other encrypted messaging services could clearly be scoped into Bill C-22 under its current definitions of electronic service providers.”

“A future public safety minister could issue orders to them requiring them to retain user metadata,” Mr. Hatfield said in an e-mail.

Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in internet and e-commerce law and professor at the University of Ottawa, said he expected private messaging services to become a high-value target for law enforcement if the bill becomes law, including for obtaining metadata.

He said that currently, courts focus on obtaining data itself, but the lawful access regime would mandate permanent structural changes to company systems.

“There is a significant difference between court-ordered disclosures and mandates to retrofit or change technical structures,” he said.

Surprise surprise a workflow built on top of a probabilistic slop generator is a house of cards, and not owning tools that create reproducible output is asking to have it blown down.

What defaults are you talking about? If you meant to reply to my other comment, I’m talking about hardware transcoding codec support settings on the server, it has nothing to do with what codec is chosen for a client - that decision is made separately. Once the codec the client needs is chosen, the hardware transcoding setting only changes whether they codec is decoded using CPU or GPU/quicksync by the server - it has no effect on codec selection. The only reason you would disable hardware transcoding for a codec that your server is capable of hardware transcoding is if your hardware is faulty or produces undesirable output for that codec when using hardware transcoding - most people don’t do this, it’s a fairly uncommon edge case. And disabling it won’t stop clients from accessing that codec, it just means that your server will CPU transcode it if requested instead of using hardware acceleration - so again it has nothing to do with client support or TVs because all it does is switch your server between hardware and software encoding / decoding. The only sane default for that setting is to hardware accelerate codecs that your PC is capable of hardware accelerating if hardware acceleration is enabled. There’s no reason not to automatically detect hardware capabilities like Plex does, instead of the current “default” where you enable hardware transcoding and then have to figure out what your hardware supports to be hardware accelerated.

Like even if they copy pasted the quicksync codec support table from Wikipedia into the server hardware acceleration settings that would be miles better because then you wouldn’t have to look up that information separately. Or, hear me out, just show next to each option which ones your computer is capable of hardware decoding vs CPU decoding.

Hopefully that gets better - I run both side by side pointed at the same folders so the exact same media is available in both. I offer all my friends the choice and list every alternate app I know of, inevitably they all prefer Plex.

Gotcha, I meant it more as a rhetorical question meant to point out that no tablet has 16GB of vram, so it kinda misses my point to talk about ones with 16GB combined ram.

I mean that is true, but still nowhere near the same thing as 16GB ram and 16GB dedicated vram. This thing has a 9070xt and a 600W PSU, so the other commenters claim that they have a higher specced tablet is just kind of absurd, especially since I don’t believe there’s a tablet in existence with discrete graphics. And even if it did, beating a recent gen card like a 9070 would be a really tall order.

What kind of tablet do you have that has 16gb of vram??

Yeah but the learn more link points to the getHdrSdrRatio documentation which says available in api level 34. Maybe that can only show if you’re using <34

Ah, maybe it could detect the api level, and show a generic error message if your api level meets the requirements but it still didn’t work.

Hmm unfortunately it doesn’t work on my pixel 5 which is running android 16 and should be api level 36

Yeah I’m more talking about everything they do in addition to make the non-premium experience more painful. The incentive is to make it as annoying as people are willing to tolerate with dark patterns and little irritations. That kind of thing is entirely done on purpose, and I think it’s gross to have to capitulate.

And this is very evident whenever you’re outside the lemmy / technically skilled bubble, on reddit and many other places, whenever the topic of YouTube ads / premium come up, a surprising proportion of the comments will be to the effect of “just pay for premium” and “premium is so worth it” or “yt premium is the most valuable subscription out of them all”. People don’t seem to care that so much of the value of premium is avoiding a problem entirely fabricated by YT.

Ah I see, I thought your criticism was that I was repeating someone else who had already referenced Clark and Dawe in this thread. My mistake. If you just don’t like when people reference or repeat commonly known jokes, then you’re free to your opinion. I don’t think there’s really any point in discussing it though, since your issue is predicated on an opinion we don’t share.

In my defense, I did check if any of the other replies had specifically referenced Clarke and Dawe before I made my comment, and unless federation delay is in play, I don’t think I repeated anyone else’s reference to the same.