I believe much of the secret government communications are accomplished using layered secret encryption algorithms. Many of these are symmetric and have physical key loading accomplished by a guy with a gun.
My understanding was that the journalist's phone number was accidentally added to the existing contact of a trusted user through the following process:
1. Journalist emailed trusted user seeking comment on something. This email contained the journalist's cell phone number in the signature block.
2. The trusted user forwarded this email to the fool with Signal.
3. The fool's iPhone suggested adding the journalist's cell phone number to the trusted user's contact.
>This achieved our goal—AWS and Google now maintain their own fork
Was this really the goal though? Forcing your biggest users to fork your software and maintain their own divergent version is not really good for anyone. Sure, Amazon and Google (or AWS and GCP - type confusion in the source material) now have to contribute some more engineering hours to the open fork, but why would anyone still want to use Redis now that there's a permissively licensed alternative maintained by the same cloud hyperscalers who will end up running it for you?
Yeah this take kind of surprised me, you really wanted Valkey to be the default option for cloud customers ensuring they'll have no migration path to your own offering? I just don't get it. You were getting $0 and now you're getting $0.
Isn't it though? They weren't contributing before and they weren't paying Redis corp before, now they are at least contributing to a fork (and still not paying Redis corp).
Presumably some of the things being worked on in Valkey, etc can be upstreamed back to Redis in some form (not entirely straightforward since it is a hard fork with a diff license, but concepts can be borrowed back too).
e.g. apparently Valkey has introduced some performance improvements. Redis can implement similar if it seems worthwhile. Without the fork those performance ideas might have never surfaced.
That is not true. Companies like AWS had paid staff working as OSS Redis core maintainers before the licencing schism. This talk of "achieving their goals" is just bluster serving no reason other than damage control.
But the person you replied to was talking about Redis's goal, and I don't think it's likely their goal had anything to do with having a competitor to themselves around. Even if they did want that, they could've just bankrolled (or engineered) a fork; changing a license to one that causes your largest users to do the work themselves is a rather roundabout way to do it.
I can almost kind of see the large users needing to work together on a replacement, meaning that replacement might as well be open-source, meaning Redis can get future improvements that were funded by the fork users (who Redis was upset wasn't paying them) as a semi-vindictive, semi-useful goal. But it's still roundabout. If that was really the plan, it could've been articulated better in this postmortem to make it clear the "goal" bit hadn't just been BS'd.
Except then when I type ":Wq" by mistake, I get an error instead of vim doing what I expect. This happens about 20 times a day for me. One line of config maintenance is well worth the end of this daily annoyance.
What really messes up flow is traffic "waves"[1] and these are often caused by drivers hitting the brakes because they're following too closely or someone cuts in front of them aggressively.
Yep - follow distance makes a huge difference in both safety and traffic flow. If you can leave 20 cars in front of you, do it. You get there just as fast but have more time to react and don't need to hit your brakes as often.
Yes. Once I realized this, I tried to put a higher priority on maintaining a more steady average speed, even though that usually means leaving a larger gap ahead of me.
Of course, the problem then becomes that people will often use that gap to cut in front of you, thus negating much of the benefit. Tragedy of the commons.
I blame automatic transmissions. Stop and go traffic is hell in a manual, so there's a bigger incentive to maintain a constant slow speed instead of zooming forward then slamming the brakes.
If a person appears 20 meters from my hood while I'm on the interstate, they're toast, whether I'm going 100 km/h or 150. Surely the unpredictable can happen at any moment with other cars, but I find follow distance more important than speed. If you're bumper to bumper at 100 km/h, you're going to have a worse time than if you give 10 cars space at 150 km/h.
Hope is not a strategy. As much as I hate crypto, something on the blockchain might be more durable. You want something that isn't reliant on any one person or company to continue to exist (though maybe the long now foundation will) and even if Bitcoin goes to zero, I think there will be some die hard true believers to keep running miners even past the built in 2140 expiration date.
reply