They share it with you. Their public key is generated by them. You encrypt a message to them with their public key. They use their private key to decrypt it.
I want to add before I get completely roasted here, that this is intentionally reductive. Signal actually uses a much more interesting multikey sharing algorithm, double ratchet. This uses onetime keypairs, and really is worth reading about.
I’m not following. In the WhatsApp case, yes, because we can’t see how those keys are managed. In the Signal case, we can. So the centralized server has zero impact on the privacy of the message. If we trust the keys are possessed only by the generating device, then how does the encrypted message become compromised?
I’m not talking about anonymity, only message privacy. No different than any of the other proxies or routers along the way. If they don’t have the key, the message is not readable.
Sorry but you’ll need to hold the L on this one. If I encrypt a message with public key material for which the only private key material that can decrypt the message is in only my possession, it doesn’t matter if the message passes centralized servers.
I’m not trying to be rude, that’s just how it works.
Sleep schedule!
Best just to eat them. Mmm. If you still have some, make banana bread. I just did today.
SO has a pretty great standard for communication. I known it can be frustrating if you don’t know the rules at first, but if one asks a clear question, states what they have attempted, and provides a minimal reproducible example, with code as text not an image, the support is pretty damned good.
The vpn block is probably trying to diminish what they can of bot scraping, to salvage what’s left of their husk of relevance.
That’s true. I suppose this shows more what proportion of respondents are hobbyists rather than what proportion of hobbyists use go. Obvious oversight on my part.
I think it is kind of a bummer that there is such low use among hobbyists and learners. I believe some of Go’s greatest strengths are its clarity and simplicity. It is one of the better languages for both learners and hobbyists. I’m not saying there aren’t other good one’s, but languages with fewer paths to a single end are great for learners not to get stuck bikeshedding their projects.
To include the neutrino in a conversation about things “with some mass” borders on silly. But hey, factually correct and all that. May as well include electrons.
Might want to check out !fedigrow@lemmy.zip. They link to some resources for sharing this or growing the new community.
Though you’re correct, Merriam Webster makes it seem that “hung” is fine here too.
I actually dig a slightly coy lead up and I’m good with the implication of sex, or just the very beginning. But then you can just cut to the next scene; I know how it works.
I really hate sex scenes that are complete with fake as pounding and moaning; get that outta here. I don’t mind nudity in the least though.
I think most even slightly accurate war movies don’t really glorify the war bit. Two recommendations.
There is a film A24 distributed last year called Warfare that follows a very accurate telling of a single operation of a platoon in Ramadi. It is pretty grim, but really gives a sense of just how brutal it can be for a small group. A lot of movies show slaughter at scale, like beaches of Normandy. That is always fascinating and dark too, but it slightly diminishes the struggle of the individuals. This does not.
Another recommendation is Tora! Tora! Tora!; an absolute classic from 1970. This movie shows you many of the mistakes and oversights, big and small that led to the Pearl Harbor attack being so crippling. Aside from huge ship and air guns there aren’t many guns. I think many people would enjoy it at the moment because it shows the USA on the rout.
Really enjoyed that flick, but it was beyond unsettling.
No. He has an obsession with being really dumb.
I think most communication errors are on behalf of the speaker, so that’s on me. Rereading, I can see how it would come off that way, but it wasn’t intended.
There are only a few communities where the sum total of several instances of saving a few keystrokes would be appreciated candidly. A bunch of nerds talking about code sharing are the vim golfers of the world.
Somebody should shop in Lisan al-Gaib from the DUNE poster with the cloak blowing in the wind.
Actually great questions. Yes and no. There are vulnerabilities if the private key leaks, but public keys are just that; perfectly okay public in any hands. You only encrypt data with it.
What makes the Signal protocol so awesome, and other algorithms like it, is that it reduces the threat surface area further by using onetime keys. So even if your key is leaked, it cannot be used to decrypt old or forthcoming messages as the keys have already ratcheted to the next pair.