与「We_Me」相关的搜索结果

SEAN: "We met last week." SCOTTIE: "I think we had a great interaction!" SEAN: "We didn't really interact." SCOTTIE: "We really didn't." Scottie Barnes and reporter Sean Leathong talk out their recent viral moment 😂 (📽️ @TSN_Sports)

Jakarta, thank you. 🇮🇩 From the stage to the trading floor, it was a good few days with the Indonesian community at IDBW. Until we meet again, somewhere around the world. 🌏

I have been thinking about something lately, and the more I think about it, the more disturbing it becomes. A lot of Nigerians became poor without doing anything wrong. They didn’t stop working. They didn’t become lazy. They didn’t suddenly become irresponsible. They simply woke up one day and realised that the money they had worked for could no longer buy the things it used to buy. Think about someone earning ₦100,000 a month. The person still wakes up early every morning, goes to work, puts in the same hours, probably works even harder, gets promoted occasionally and does everything society says a responsible person should do. Yet every year, that person seems to be able to afford less. At some point, ₦50,000 could buy a reasonable amount of food for the house. Today, you can enter the market with the same ₦50,000 and genuinely wonder where the money went. Nothing happened to you. The economy happened to you. And I think this is something we don’t talk about enough. Imagine working hard for years, only for circumstances completely outside your control to quietly reduce the value of everything you have worked for. You didn’t lose your job. You didn’t lose your salary. But somehow, you lost your standard of living. That is poverty too. And this is why I struggle with the way we sometimes discuss palliatives. Of course, when people are hungry, you must find ways to help them immediately. There is nothing wrong with providing temporary relief. But surely, the bigger question should be: Why did millions of working Nigerians suddenly need palliatives in the first place? If a man could comfortably buy a bag of rice from his salary a few years ago and today he needs government assistance to buy that same bag of rice, giving him rice may solve today’s hunger. But it has not solved the actual problem. The real problem is that his labour has lost value. And perhaps that is what we should be obsessed with fixing. How do we make the Nigerian worker’s income valuable again? How do we make ₦100,000 buy more next year, rather than less? How do we make food cheaper by producing more? How do we reduce the cost of energy and transportation? How do we build an economy where salaries can actually keep up with the cost of living? Because when I think deeply about it, perhaps one of the greatest things a government can do for its people is not to keep giving them money. It is to build an economy where the money they earn has value. There is dignity in being able to take care of yourself from the product of your own labour. There is dignity in a teacher being able to feed a family from teaching. There is dignity in a nurse being able to pay rent from nursing. There is dignity in a young person working an honest job and gradually seeing life improve. People should be able to look back after five years of hard work and say, “My life has become better.” Not, “I earn more money today, but somehow I can afford less.” That is the part that keeps bothering me. Millions of Nigerians are not asking to become millionaires overnight. They just want hard work to make sense again. And maybe that should be one of the simplest ways we measure whether our economy is actually working: Is the ordinary Nigerian who works hard becoming progressively better off, or progressively poorer? Everything else is secondary.

Very welcome recent news from Signal: they are working on letting you register an account without a phone number. That said, an important counterpoint about what this would and would not accomplish. The good #1#: reducing dependence on phone numbers. Even aside from privacy benefits, reducing dependency on a highly oligopolistic system of chokepoints is good in itself. The good #2#: phone numbers are for many people not a good "root" of identity from an access control perspective. Phone numbers get sim swapped all the time. The good #3#: allowing phone-number-free accounts will make it harder for them in the future to discriminate against people by country - and so make it harder for governments to pressure them to block their own citizens. Now, on privacy. Significantly better than status quo, so yes it is good #4#, but... In practice, in 2026, I believe that pseudonymity (a long-term persistent account that is not tied to your primary identity) is a dead concept. There are just too many channels by which we accidentally slowly leak data about who we are - timing of messages, the pattern of who we send messages to with what frequency, size, etc. And too many highly effective AI-based means (both using LLMs per-user, and LLMs helping every person and agency under the sun use math that we had all along) to uncover and piece together those hints. As a trivial example, whatever server you interact with learns your IP address, but even if you hide *that* with a VPN or Tor, there are many other identity leakage vectors. And so the only defensible form of privacy is *message-by-message unlinkability* - no one except sender and receiver knows the (sender, receiver) pair, ideally even not knowing who the sender or the receiver are. A natural taxonomy of privacy is the following 2x2: * Sitting duck: adversary knows "X did Y" * Confidentiality: adversary knows "X did ???" [E2E encryption provides this] * Anonymity: adversary knows "??? did Y" [aka message-by-message unlinkability] * Ideal: adversary knows "??? did ???" Signal has already had confidentiality for a long time. (Note: in other contexts, "confidentiality" sometimes means "someone knows X did Y, and we trust that someone to not reveal it", ie. not true privacy. Here, by confidentiality we mean hiding contents from third parties) This adds pseudonymity: in the above schema, adversary knows "0x8b512c... did Y", where they don't initially know who 0x8b512c... is, but may figure that out over time. The ideal is getting to message-by-message unlinkability. Actually accomplishing that gets into territory that is currently being explored by mixnet projects as well as newer messengers, eg. @session_app and @SimpleXChat. Once we get deeper into this territory, I suspect the primary frontier will be spam and DoS protection. Right now, much of the internet blocks all Tor exit nodes - not because they personally hate privacy, but because that's where DoS attacks come from. So we need ways for people to prove their non-spammer status while maintaining message-by-message unlinkability. See here for one direction (which complements nicely). So I hope that we appreciate the victory that is mainstreaming of end-to-end encryption, that we actually get Signal accounts without phone number dependency (it's a great thing even if it had zero privacy consequences), and then that we keep moving forward and pushing the frontier of data leakage minimization.