Didn't that exact thing happen with open ai last year?

I should pour water on my girlfriend?

It also retains it's collector value. Just in case it becomes a collectors item. Who knows these days.

The tyrant is gone! Seize the means of food production! /s

Wasn't that the whole deal of SBF? I think he said if he could flip a coin between destroying the world or making it more than twice as good, he'd do it. And then he loaned other people's money to himself to gamble on it.

They sadly can prove if a cube is unsolvable.

Seems kinda dangerous °0°

Good travels '_'

I disagree with all of this.

So he switched to Linux when personal security became important to him and has been using it since. Why is this an argument against it being a good choice for privacy and security especially since it offers special made distros, that go above and beyond any alternative in those aspects.

His opsec mistakes are acknowledged even by him, but were not the fault of the tools he used.

The extend of his leaks are vast, but his approach is understandable. He knew, if he did this, the life he had lived thus far (which was pretty comfortable) would be over. So rather than leaking selectively he took what he could. Also it was important to him to not be the person to make the choice what would be published, that is why he approached journalists straight away. He gave them the intel and they chose what to publish. Them withholding info is not a sign of a mistake, but of the plan working out. Again, given the size and extend of the whole endeavour there were mistakes. Journalists made mistakes when publishing or redacting information, but I would argue from snowens side this is a good approach. You hand it to the authority you trust, not the government but the journalists, who work in the public's interests. They frequently handle information they cannot publish.

His place of exile was barely his choice. He applied for asylum in many countries before landing on (effectively) China and finally Russia. He did not want to go there, but the pattern he describes is believable in my opinion: He was in negotiations for asylum in a country and it looked promising. The country got a call from the US. The country declined. Repeat. When your enemy is the states, the circle of potential friends is very small and usually autocratic.

To me this also explains his political statements going forward. He sacrificed his life in freedom to inform the public. Now that his freedom is gone, he must be careful. The fact that he criticised Russia at all to me shows at least some courage. He know Russia can just kick him out and he'll be up for grabs by the states. If he sang Russia's praises, I would not believe him, but I would understand him.

Talking about his skills I believe is a silly thing. This even annoyed me in the movie about him where he aces his aptitude test by restoring the backup before creating it (?what?). This is heroic Hollywood nonsense. He is not special because he is smart and he said that himself "Whistleblowers are normal people". But that narrative is harder to sell. A normal person could embarrass the United states? A normal person could tear the veil of a surveillance apparatus? Unimaginable! He must be special.

Still he did have skills. He got the job and held it. He held certificates and earned good money and he understood enough to see, what went wrong. He was not leet ultra hacker, breaking NSA Firewalls, but he never claimed it. He is special due to his morals, not his technical skills. Many people before him saw what he saw and stayed quiet. That is the deciding factor.

There is no handbook on how to be a perfect Whistleblower. And the concept was not as common back then. If he could go back he absolutely would do things different, but he said, that he would do it again and the thing he regrets more than his other mistakes is, that he didn't do it sooner. Ultimately he wanted to show what happened and offer a choice, do we accept and continue or do we change and push back and while change is "very hard" on the political and legal level, it is only "hard" on a technical level, by owning your data and your systems. So it is no surprise, that people who use privacy focused systems point to Snowden as an argument. And that I can understand. Some people take a little far and idealize him as the big cyber jesus, who died for our data. And maybe some of what I wrote sounds like this too due to how the story went, but that's of course silly. But discrediting him outright because of mistakes, he acknowledges himself is equally silly.

You have failed the smolness test ^(you^ ^are^ ^too^ ^smol)^

More like every day.

Yes, thank you for your explanation.

Ia the left guy a guy? Ornis the left girl a girl?
Also who wants to be my girlfriend?