yeah, that’s why i am happy to avoid the us when travelling, mainly because of reports that electeonics are bricked regulary by them, but this discussion is more about theft. like “never allow hand luggage to be checked, better miss the flight instead”:

https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/99956/how-common-is-it-for-airport-officers-to-steal-valuables-from-luggage

it’s not always about travellers that could lay hands on your stuff, maybe staff “needs” a living wage too ;-)

i once had to look at a firefall appliance cluster, (discovered, it could not do any failover in its current state but somehow the decider was ok with that) but when looking at its logs, i discovered an rsh and rcp access from an ip address that belonged to a military organisation from a different continent. i had to make it a security incident. later the vendor said that this was only the cluster internal routing (over the dedicated crosslink), used for synchronisation (the thing that did not work) and was only used by a separate routing table only for clustersync and that could never be used for real traffic. but why not simply use an ip that you “own” by yourself and PTR it with a hint about what this ip is used for? instead of customers scratching their head why military still uses rcp and rsh. i guess because no company reads firewall logs anyway XD

someone elses ip? yes! becuase they’ll never find out !!1!

i really appreciate that ipv6 has things like a dedicated documentation address range and that fc00:/7 is nicely short.

ipv6 in companies… ipv6 is not hard, but for internal networking no company (really) “needs” more than rfc1918 address space. thus any decision in that direction is always “less” needed than any bonus for (da)magement personnel is crucial for the whole companies survival…

for companies services to be reachable from outside/ipv6 mostly “only” the loadbalancers/revproxies etc need to be ipv6 ready but … this i.e. also produces logs that possibly break decades old regexes that no one understands any more (as the good engineers left due to too many boni payed to damagement personnel) while other access/deny rules that could break or worse let through where they should block (remember that 192.168. could the local part of ipv6 IF sone genious used a matching mech that treats the dot “.” as a wildcard as overpayed damagement personnel made them rush too fast), could be hidden “somewhere”. altogether technical debt is a huge blocker for everything, especially company growth, and if no customer “demands” ipv6, then it stays on the damagement personnels list as “fulfilling the whishes of engineers to keep them happy” instead of on the always deleted “cleaning up technical debt caused by damagement personnel” list.

setting up firewalls for ipv6 is quite easy and if you go the finegrained “whitelisted or drop/block” approach from the beginning it might take a bit for ipv6 specials to be known to you, but the much bigger thing is IMHO the then current state of firewall rules. and who knows every existing rule? what rules should be removed already and must not be ported to ipv6? usually firewalls and their rules are a big mess due to … again too many boni payed to damagement personnel, hindering the company from the needed steps forward…

ipv6 adoption is slow for reasons that are driving huge cars that in turn speed up other problems ;-|

maybe start with an adjustable setup:

• rent a cheap vm, i got one for 1€/month (for the first year,cancel monthly) from ovh currently
• setup 3 openvpn instances to redirect all routes through the tunnel, one with ipv4 only, one with ipv6 only and one with both
• setup the client on your mobile phone and your laptop both with all three vpns to choose from
• have the option to choose now and try out ipv6, standalone or dualstack depending on what vpn you switch on
• use this setup to blame services that don’t support ipv6 yet or maybe are broken with dualstack 🤣
• rise from under-the-stone (disabling ipv6 only) to in-sunlight (to a well-above-industry-standart-level !!! “quick” new network technologies adopting “genious”) 🤣
• improve your openvpn setup from above to be reachable “by” ipv6 too if you haven’t done it from the beginning, done: reach the pro-level of the-late-adopter-noob-group

(if you want, ask for config snippets)

btw i prefer to wait for ipv8😁 before “demanding” ipv6 from services i use 🤣

a public room is public. anyone could and should be able to enter it at any moment start recording and uploading everything to $terrorist@/or$three-letter-agency or such. The idea that someone else could also get the same already public data later is not threatening, as that data is already considered public as in “everyone in the world could have it a second after the data came into existance”. and also as removing from the public is not considered possible, uploading that already intentionally published data again does not pose a greater threat than its first publication, but uses just a bit of bandwidth, not more. if you are very sensitive about visibility of who you talk with, maybe don’t enter “public” rooms in the first place.

if you join a private room, you already want to share with the other participants that you are f***ing talking to them, including when and who you exactly encrypted the data for, when, and to which servers they have to be forwarded. i expect the server of all participants to forward messages to the recipients. for this the server needs to know this type of information. Of course awareness, which data is used to make i.e. routing decisions is a good thing, but a “nightmare” would be teams zoom icq, whatsapp and similar. i am sure that messengers exist that could be less traceable for participants, but full anonymity to who you are communicating with so that even the servers know nothing about what happens in a room is imho not even a goal of matrix for the future.

Not a “nightmare”, but what a nightmare it must be to find out that a system that looked so promising did not fulfill “every” dreamexpectation one had with options that are even the opposite of ones dreamexpectation like “public rooms”. that are meant to be public! how horrible!!!(lol)

by the way -as it seems possibly noteworthy here - if you exchange emails with someones @gmail address, then google has all of your mail histories metadata, as well as the server of your provider has. just to mention, do not send emails to @gmail.com if you dislike google knowing about it. and if you share a document with edit history, then the edit history is likely also shared ;-) As “rooms” in matrix are meant to have a state that changes from the beginning sometimes possibly with every message and one can answer to a message which would reveal the existance of that message later when answered on, including at least a hint of what it was about, such information is imho meant to to be rather complete than hidden. maybe 1:1 chat solves this issue for you, as every chat with a new other person would start empty.

i might be wrong, but matrix already is one of the most robust systems when it comes to “compromised servers”. so very far away from a nightmare. that is unless you are either a true criminal bastard or a true world saving hero, then every leaked byte might be the deadly one, that is true.

So in case you are a true world saving hero: Maybe use a self build raspberry pi mesh proxy chain mounted on rooftops delivered by drones at night to proxy the signal of an in-memory-only-tasks-raspi to a free wifi, where the raspi that has its orders is using battery (like the rooftop proxy chain) but is hidden in a public transport to reach the proxy mesh by the transportations timetable. just to give a paranoic one some ideas and some work to do ;-) If you’ve build everything, then upload the code to github and designs to thingiverse so that “anyone” could have placed the proxy mesh to a free wifi on the rooftops, so you be more secure from beeing suspected ;-) lol btw a mesh system to accomplish this already exists, i think they named it b.a.t.m.a.n. (no joke) protocol, so the main struggle should be handling of solar power vs wifi signal strength, distances, humidity and windproof mount design beeing able to be deployed by manually controlled quadrocopters. good luck!

while at the same time by-design cloaking it as pure bad quality could actually cause way more longterm damage than a little bit of paint.

on the other hand the paint could also be just a marketing strategy depending on what they smoked to get new ideas

the “news” i “know” about india is little, some historical “facts” written mostly by uncivilized brutish invaders compacted to youtube videos by part or fulltime streamers. Some other “facts” which sound often bad i sometims mostly have from official media known to promote any “nice” propaganda - that is, depicting other countries worse than the own one so that people do not hunt their own gov with garden forks just to stop the crimes. Well i really “know” nothing about India.

But beeing proud of culture usually is a good thing, but that is only if it is culture and as such does not(!) base on abuse or similar.

Maybe what you experience could be a crowd effect that protects the people from seeing what they (group, society) do wrong while at the same time it protects the worst wrongdoers from punishment or at least from getting stopped. Such as it could be a self-sustaining downwards spiral taking more and more and everything down with it slowly increaaing pace. At least what you wrote sounded a slight bit chilling like that.

It could be hormones and how culture tells you to act or not act on them, or a lack of culture about such, maybe a combination of culture to “support your group” while that support does not always protect integrity of the overall concept of what that culture was meant for. A group of people cheering to each other how good they are might not want to stop cheering for “minor reasons” because it just feels good. While doing wrong things they could “help” each other (which is supposedly a good thing but can do lot of harm too) with arguments that this wrongdoing would be ok or even "good’ in this specific moment because of <insert_bullshit_here>. alltogether spiralling downwards doing so more often every day. So all of them can go on wrongdoing while feeling well supported or even falsely feel superior in general.

however a figure (real/not real?) well known in india once said something like “it is better to calm down and just do your thing than to overreact”. (this is the shortes version i’ve ever tried to compact it to but maybe you get the idea anyway).

I know for a fact that this is not true,

i don’t know the underlying things that make it a fact, plz share.

lets see on wikipedia, what a conspiracy is:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy

A conspiracy, also known as a plot, is a secret plan or agreement between people (called conspirers or conspirators) for an unlawful or harmful purpose, such as murder, treason, or corruption, especially with a political motivation,[1] while keeping their agreement secret from the public or from other people affected by it.

so there seem to be some mayor points:

• for what purpose or motivation was it (unlawful or harmful)?
• under what surroundings (like breaking laws that were in effect)?
• what would be done? (like murder,treason,corruption)
• from whom would it be hidden?

purpose: unlawful or harmful? i suggested a purpose, thats right. wether a billionaire NOT dying actually is harmful is worth a separate discussion, but having a plan to not die in a submarine “accident” by itself would usually rather be considered a rescue, not causing harm. did physical harm to persons happen in the story that i suggested? nope, the opposite would be true. but would it have been unlawful? on open seas leaving a vessel that is about to sink usually also is not considered an unlawful action. also to consider something to be unlawful, at least some law about the happening would need to have been in effect. this could maybe be answered with the question under which countries flag the submarine was registered with. For most or all ship accidents one can hear in the news like ‘a ship under panama flag’ (or literally any other country) which i did not hear a single time for the sub. also the sub was not even “transported” by the supporting vessel to the site but towed, thus it could be considered a completely separate vessel under assumingly no flag at all. talking about unlawfullnes of actions in international territory seems a bit offtopic. but i guess that these oceanic laws have very few laws about any unlawfulness of leaving your own sub before letting it implode.

now of course there are other people involved. family members may suffer the loss. but as for my suggested imaginary story line the persons that simply left the vessel would not contact their family any more at least for some time. but is it unlawful to not contact family members? i guess not. it might be unlawful to claim youre dead (wtf) but that is not what would have happened in the imagined story line i suggested to make much more sense to me. in that scenario other people (like gov agencies) would do that claim. not preventing gov to do false claims is usually not considered unlawful by govs that do false claims, otherwise … well that would be a very!! different story haha.

not telling anyone to still be alive may be odd, but not unlawful by itself. if one has a contract with an insurance company that states such an obligation, it would be failing to comply with a contract but not necessarily “unlawful” as such a contract is not a law, but a contract and might state like loss of insurance if one failed to comply. but then even if not telling your insurance company to still be alive is maybe a crime within the us, outside of it things could be very different especially when not in any country at all. like some laws do not count in some countries and thus doing so is not unlawful there.

would the intent to get a new identity, dropping the old one be harmful or unlawful? Not directly, there are lawful ways to get new identities in many countries on the world, most of them are pretty lawful and mostly the harm had then already been done to the person that gets the new identity. so i guess the intent of getting a new id is neither harmful nor unlawful and could simply be a formal process within the laws of the destination country. it could even be part of a process to protect persons who are in danger and law enforcement said, that a billionaire to get abnew id should also do something to disappear also in the minds before getting their new id and thus it could be completely possible that disappearing is in compliance with the law to protect a person who claimed to have been in danger and needed a believable disappearance for their security.

now to me it looks like i found some good arguments how the imaginary story line was neither harmful nor unlawful. and also described that it could be argued that no laws were in effect that would apply and make a life rescue mission an unlawful event in the mids of the ocean. even laws could actually have been used in compliance with gov entities to protect someone from an imaginary danger in this imaginary case.

in theory i could say that its not a conspiracy what i suggested as main factors do not apply or at least do not have to apply and i should be done now but lets look at the other points for the sake of completeness:

murder: wouldn’t have been done, but the exact opposite: saving lifes. again, discussion if rescueing billionaires could be considered harmful to the rest of the world, would be a bit too offtopic and not even in question here.

treason: wikipedia has a definition about that too: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

Treason is the crime of attacking a state authority to which one owes allegiance.

Now i do not see a state beeing attacked in my imaginary story.

corruption:

Corruption is a form of dishonesty or a criminal offense which is undertaken by a person or an organization which is entrusted in a position of authority, in order to acquire illicit benefits or abuse power for one’s personal gain.

i don’t see a person or organization which was entrusted in a position of authority being dishonest in my imaginary story line. which authority was given to rush or oceangate? or which involved organization did something dishonest? none? so no corruption took place.

same is with that “political motivation” mentioned in wikipedia about conspiracy, i do not see a political motivation involved in what i wrote.

i’ld say there is no conspiracy in the suggested imaginary story i wrote, as not even one of the major points of a conspiracy would match at least a little bit. it would possibly be near to a crime, but without a law beeing in effect, it cannot be called a crime, right? so the story i wrote is not about a conspiracy.

did i overlook something? or are you just completely wrong?

that a moderately clever human can talk them into doing pretty much anything.

besides that LLMs are good enough to let moderately clever humans believe that they actually got an answer that was more than guessing and probabilities based on millions of trolls messages, advertising lies, fantasy books, scammer webpages, fake news, astroturfing, propaganda of the past centuries including the current made up narratives and a quite long prompt invisible to that human.

cheerio!

1. i am sure you won’t pay for it if my laptop disappears this way (if yes, lets make a contract with a lifetime “fee” of 0$ i pay you whilst you pay for everything that got stolen from me in a plane)
2. ppl with kleptomania do travel too
3. how could you know? you are not talking about you and your colleagues or such?
4. such statistics were made by those who benefit from planes looking more safe.
5. “work and travel” vs “steal and travel”, which is more likely be done by a thiev?
6. not all theives “need” to steal, some just do so because they can, others maybe because its family tradition.
7. sometimes it could be more important that nobody could possibly put something into(!) your bag (and remove it later) to let you get it through customs for them, those arguably “would” buy such tickets to do so, as it’s probably part of their income, but i guess thats only a problem when flying in or out of countries with big illegal drug imports.
8. <something i forgot>

if your wife wasn’t vi-impressed, maybe she already is vi-improved ;-)

I see only one reason, why i would want to be early at the seat. its bcs if i am not, my backpack might be placed above but multiple seats away by the crew, where it is then uneasy for me to have an eye on it whilst easy for theives to take and open them, especially on long flights there would be plenty of opportunity like when everyone is sleeping.

but for this case i use locks on the backpack anyway, so that anyone who wants to open it, either opens it where nothing of value is in it thus no lock, or at least has a much harder time than when trying the very same with other bags…

also on longer flights i usually did not have that problem, but that could also have been just luck

i think it was not the whole hull but one of the materials, the hull was made of that had expired. well, carbon fibre has its strenght when pulled, but when pushing it bends. but if one uses resin on the fibre, then it gets some strenght when pushed too. similar to steel and concrete, while steel can really be pulled a lot, concrete is way better when pushed than steel. steel is quite stable when pushed too, but thats not its main strength. i think the resin was what really held the pressure in the sub, not the carbon fibre, but with this i only have that dangerous type of half-knowledge i’ld have to bring to expert level before doing something stupid (like depending on that to be fully true without really knowing).

in general things often last longer than their expected “minimum” to be used without concern. but in practice one would have to test for damage or if its worn out (like its done with airplane parts at fixed intervals) even without using materials of bad quality. but that was AFAIK what oceangate’s management decided to explicitly NOT check the sub for - despite internal demands to do so.

i would not say its not possible to build a secure pressure hull out of carbon fibre, or out of carbon fibre of not the best quality, or a hull of a different shape than a sphere, or a hull out of different materials with different bending behaviors under pressure, or when such components are “glued” together on the edges that do the different bending, but ALL of this at the same time and without even checking at least after a new maximum depth was reached? not to mention crackling sounds after which heared one would want to double check. Even the wright brothers seemed more cautious to me.

today one would at least get some wear level statistics with unmanned vehicles in a slightly deeper than intended depth to have security margins and afterwards throughout checks for the parts that are important, single points of failures or are one of the proudly new developed.

my idea currently is to finish some projects that have priority and afterwards then look for lineage os on raspberry pi, combined with gsm modem and maybe a gps module, all powered by a slim powerbank. might make up a huge bulky phone but i almost want to start building it now. On the other hand if i wait until my other projects are finished, the whole thing might be ready made available for self assembly…

after looking at the ticket myself i think the relevant things IMHO are:

• a person filed a bug report due to not seeing what changes in the new version caused a different behaviour
• that person seemed pushy, first telling the dev where patches should be sent to (is this normal? i guess not, better let the dev decide where patches go or -in this case- if patches are needed at all), then coming up with ceo style wordings (highly visible, customer experience of untested but nevertheless released to live product is bad due to this (implicitly “your”) bug)
• pushiness is counterparted by “please help”
• free-of-charge consulting was given by the one pointing to changes likely beeing visible in changelog (i did not look though) but nevertheless it was pointed out to the parameter which assumes RTFM (if docs were indeed updated) that a default value had changed and its behavior could be adjusted by using that given parameter.

up to there that person -belonging to M$ or not (don’t know and don’t care) - behaved IMHO rather correctly, submitting a bug report for something that looked like it, beeing a bit pushy, wanting priority, trying to command, but still formally at least “asking” for help. but at that point the “bug” seemed to have been resolved to me, it looks like the person was either not reading the manual and changelog, or maybe manual or changelog lacks that information, but that was not stated later so i guess that person just did not read neither changelog nor manual.

instead - so it seems to me - that person demanded immediate and free-of-charge consulting of how exactly the switch should be used to work in that specific use case which would imply the dev looks into the example files, maybe try and error for himself just so that that person does not need to neither invest the time to learn use the software the company depends on, nor hire a consultant to do the work.

i think (intentional or not) abusing a bug tracker for demanding free-of-charge enduser consulting by a dev is a bad idea unless one wants(!) to actively waste the precious time of the dev (that high priority ticket for the highly visible already live released product relies on) or has even worse intentions like:

• uploading example files with exploits in them, pointing to the exact versions that include the RCE vulnerability that sample file would abuse and the “bug” was just reported cause it fits the version needed for exploitation and pressure was made by naming big companies to maybe make the dev run a vulnerable version on it on his workstation before someone finds out, so that an upstream attack could take place directly on the devs workstation. but thats just creating a fictive worst case scenario.

to me this clearly looks like a “different culture” problem. in companies where all are paid from basically the same employer, abusing an internal bug tracker for quick internal consulting would probably be seen as just normal and best practice because the dev who knows and is actually working on the code is likely to have the solution right at hand without thinking much while the other person, who is in charge of quick fixing an untested but already live to customers released product, does not have sufficient knowledge of how the thing works and neither is given the time to learn or at least read changelogs and manual nor the time to learn the basics of general upstream software culture.

in companies the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle could be a problem that imho likely leads to such situations, but this is a guess as i know nobody working there and i am not convinced that that person is in fact working for the named company, instead in that ticket shows up a name that i would assume to be a reason to not rely too much about names in the tickes system always be realnames.

the behaviour that causes the bad postings here in this lemmy thread is to me likely “just” a culture problem and that person would be advised well if told to learn to know the open source culture, netiquette etc and learn to behave differently depending on to who, where and how they communicate with, what to expect and how to interact productively to the benefit of their upstream too, which is the “real price” all so often in open source. it could be that in the company that rolled out the untested product it is seen to be best practice to immediately grab the dev who knows a software and let him help you with whatever you can’t on your own (for whatever reason) whenever you manage to encounter one =]

i assume the pushyness could likely come from their hierarchy. it is not uncommon that so called leaders just create pressure to below because they maybe have no clue of the thing and not want to gain that clue, but that i cannot know, its just a picture in my head. but in a company that seems to put pressure on releasing an untested product to customers i guess i am not too wrong with the direction of that assumption. what the company maybe should learn is that releasing untested and/or unfinished products to live is a bad habit. but i also assume that if they wanted to learn that, they maybe would have started to learn it like roundabout 2 decades ago. again, i do not know for what company that person works -or worked- for, could be just a subcontractor of the named one too. and also could be that the pushyness (telling its for m$, that its live, has impact to customers etc) was really decided by someone up the latter who would have literally no experience at all on how to handle upstream in such situations. hierarchies can be very dysfunctional sometimes and in companies saying “impact to customers” sometimes is likely the same as saying “boss says asap”.

what i would suggest their customers (those who were given a beta version as production ready) should learn is that when someone (maybe) continously delivers differently than advertised, that after some few times of experiencing this, the customer would be insane when assuming that that bad behaviour would vanish by pure hope + throwing money into hands where money maybe already didn’t help improving their habits for assumingly decades. And when feeding everhungry with money does not resolve the problems, that maybe looking towards those who do have a non-money-dependant grown-up culture could actually provide more really usable products. Evaluation of new solutions (which one would really be best for a specific usecase i.e.) or testing new versions before really rolling them out to live might be costly especially when done throughout, but can provide a lot of really high valueable stability otherwise unreachable by those who only throw money at shareholders of brands and maybe rely on pure hope for all of the rest. Especially when that brand maybe even officially anounced to remove their testing department ;+) what should a sane and educated customer expect then ? but again to note, i do not know which companies really are involved and how exactly. from the ticket i do not see which company that person directly works for, nor if the claim that m$ is involved is a fact or just a false claim in hope for quicker help (companies already too desperate to test products before live could be desperate again in need for even more help when their bad habits piled up too long and begin falling on their heads)

the xz vulnerability was done through a superflous dependency to systemd, xz was only the library that was abused to use systemd’s superflous dependency hell. sshd does not use xz, but systemd does depend on it. sshd does not need systemd, but it was attacked through its library dependency.

we should remove any pointless dependencies that can be found on a system to prevent such attacks in future by reducing dependency based attack vectors to a minimum.

also we should increase the overall level of privilege separation where systemd is a good bad example, just look at the init binary and its capability zoo.

The company who hired “the” systemd developer should IMHO start to really fix these issues !

so please hold your “$they have fixed it” back until the the root cause that made the xz dependency level attack possible in the first place has been really fixed =)

Of course pointing it out was good, but now the root cause should be fixed, not just a random symptom that happened to be the first visible atrack that used this attack vector introduced by systemd.

nah nah, the sub was not build “poorly”, it was just build with cheap and “lightweight” components!1!

now seriously i can understand ppl to try new components, technics etc. and going to such dives with your own build vessel is way more adequate than sending only others to dive with your deathtraps.

however what annoys me the most is that press was talking about an “engineering” failure and seemingly still most are saying so (at least i did until now not read someone saying it was not an engineering failure). In engineering you do tests, not only a functioning test, but also you test for durability and fractures, and you do that until you have at least good statistics to rely on how to schedule fracture tests of the components that face stresses or are important like fan blades in airplane engines, which are checked for fractures in regular maintenance intervals. but from what i know is that Rush was explicitly asked to let the carbon hull be tested for fractures which he then declined with management reasons in mind, that it would cost money and delay the success. thus to m it was a management decision, not an engineering failure.

And that one point that billionaires are involved, for me just puts the death into question. as rich ppl tend to want to get more richiness and some(all?)times like to betray and abuse, my first guess would be that the death could have been faked for getting things like extra insurance money, new identity etc. all they would have needed to do was to have another ship to help them, dive low to the other ship, get out of it, take their sound comm with them and put the sub into auto dive. answer some comm messages while they leave the site and make the sound comm look like they are as far away as they should be diving right now. if there weren’t billionaires, i would not think of such. but an intent to disappear could explain the management decision to skip all testing for fractures, would explain the rough towing behind the starting vessel and all other ignorances. but in this case they would not have been squished and not been idiots, just ordinary criminals. and in this case the success would be a hit-and-run instead of long time going to market, seeking other richies risky and stupid enough to dive that deep in a carbon vessel… to me everything i’ve heared just makes sense if that was a faked death, otherwise it all just does not make enough sense. or with other words: “a stupid billionaire wanting to do engineering but also not wanting to do so despite beeing in unprecedented material/rough terrain and actually asked to do fracture tests for security then fireing the engineer while having good intentions to allow for “cheap” touristic deep dives accidently killed himself by his own stupidity but was at the same time wise enough to put everything into place so the ‘passengers’ would not even have been ‘passengers’ officially but like engineers involved in building the vessel so that it could not even officially have been a commercial but only experimental vessel including all ppl on board where also everyone agreed on the exact risk that also actually happened in a place where the laws of his country do not count and the actual incident would also remove all evidences in one go” … if such a description does not make you scratch your head… and thats why i doubt they actually have been squished. For my “the removal of all evidences” … some explanations showed that it is unlikely that anything in the sub would not just beeing squished but also cut by a myriad of carbonfiber hull fragments while beeing sharp and harder than bones coming towards the inner of the sub at a very high velocity and such million cut pieces of human remains could quickly be carried away or just eaten up while hardly beeing able to be identified as human any more. thus my doubts about death maybe beeing just faked would highly depend on the actual results of DNA analysis of the recovered human remains while dna analysis seems unlikely to happen as there is no official doubt who was in that Vessel in the first place… help, i am stuck in a looop!

All who could have an idea of what to do with it could seek a way to get that data out of every company or gov that have it for their specific reasons, no matter if data was collected lawful or not, or if access to the data is then lawful or not.

1. search for source of evidences on crime scenes: if one of your relatives happened to have been (related to crime or just bad luck) at a place where later on some evidence was collected, you might cause trouble for them bcs your data is very similar to theirs and that is obvious to laboratories. depending on the the “later on” current state of technology it could affect relatives more than two or three steps away from you. if you live in a country where law enforcement gives a shit about truth and just seeks for one argument to punish just anyone they can point a finger at, that could become a huge problem for the whole family then just because there was data that could have been abused.
2. illegal organ traders could - once they have access to your data - think you or your relatives could be a source of nice income if a client of theirs happen to pay enough. however you will probably never know as the illegal organ traders are unlikely to ring the doorbell to ask nicely for a contract. How much do you think would a richie in personal needs pay for “spare parts” if those who deliver them wants him to just never ask where it came from ? does it matter if such organ teaders could know a “compatible match” by data only? maybe not because they might know tomorrow or someone might put up an AI to do the matching (does it matter if that matching by AI is correct then? i guess such traders don’t really care and their customers probably, but wouldn’t that be possibly too late then?)

For me the latter is actually enough to not willingly give my DNA data to anyone. for no reason. gov might already have it (covid probes had been collected and frozen at least) but actively pushing your data out inzo the world would be insane IMHO.

Laboratories often use Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Active Directory and Microsoft Exchange, thus i personally see no reason to NOT believe that any data they have received once in time would - sooner or later - end up rotating uncontrolled in the hands of uncountable criminals waiting for any chance to make quick or huge money out of it.

there was a study saying that there is not “the” best way of learning, but it is best to combine multiple ways, like with an app, by book, listening to audio only (i listened to radio stations via internet and got some exercise for free), a bit of talking, visiting a country that only speaks that language and so on. trying everything a bit in parallel.

that is because of our brain learns better when given more different types of “connections” to learn.

i started with duolingo (website only, not the app and only the free parts) 4 years ago and now i speak quite fluently. but i also partly read a book about grammatics, visited a spanish speaking country (more than once), viewed movies with only subtitle in my language and did lots of phone calls in spanish only.

my advice is:

look at free apps, whatever pleases you, take chances, listen to the sound (movies, radio), try to speak, and read easy books or go through exercise books.

duolingo is good to keep on going while not really motivated as the shortest thing that counts are really only minutes and one can choose to do something that is already easy. this way at least continuation is kept even if pace is down for a while. and it is much easier to go on with pace when not having really stopped.

ok, i have to admit, that i was thinking of google-“services” free phones like the new ones from huawei. but sure android is made by google (but not “owned” by them). however i can try to “rescue” my argument by saying something like “just use a nokia 3310! they’re still working and the batterie should still last a week if not more” ;-)

however projects like lineage os might be a good choice to have threeth (as in more than “both”), more security, less dependency from google, and also more influence on the actual software included in the build, if it’s not even possible to just compile it yourself and have freedom of changing every line of code as you wish.