The first name of the project was “The Final Solution to your Wayland Wallpaper Worries”. The developer reports he was unaware of the connotation until the Ukraine war happened.

If your threat model involves all these, then you can only be one person, and he has already been arrested due to stylistics. /joking

BTW your advice to use AI against writing style fingerprinting is not what I have heard, and some people don’t want to use AI, especially OpenAI. You should at least make your remedy about local models, but those are not as good as the commercial ones.

The correct response here is: style guides.

Style guides are specifically designed to make multiple staff writers to all sound the same. There are tools like back-and-forth translation and reading level analyzers that you can use offline to minimize peculiarities in your writing.

But is is all very cumbersome and error prone, and for low threat scenarios just mimicking another person at a lower reading level than yourself is the most accessible method.

Think of it a bit like being in a dark room. You can sorta see other people (or their silhouettes), but if someone turns on a torch, then you can definetly see the torch.

IIRC recent studies show that this method can identify individuals with higher specificity than you describe here. The OP didn’t specify threat models, but provided general privacy advice. Moving around town with a jammer is a physical parallel of fingerprinting an anonymous browser (It’s this mysterious user again).

But if your threat model requires you are not placed in a specific place at a specific time, then just having the jammer on in this place will not identify you on its own. Then it also depends on how many people are also using jammers. If only spies used Tor, it would be very easy to smoke them out, but the rest of Tor users serve as decoy for the spies.

So the dark room analogy is not a good fit here, and it is potentially dangerous for people under certain threat models. Just setting the record gay, with all due respect.

Great article, thanks!

Not America, England, France, Italy, Portugal or Spain. This was my meaning. Simplistic or not, I want to hear from the rest of the world.

I just used the term “post war” to define the second half of twentieth century. A knee jerk reflex from history classes. The participation in the war is actually tangent to my request.

“Leftist” in 2000s Italy meant either a) communist or socialist party outside the established Communist parties, also mostly excluded from parliamentary politics…or b) lifestyle progressive in the extended network of ‘a’, also understood as “lite center-left”. There is no way to quantify the “amount of Left” since these two meanings of the word are in opposite directions.

Understanding this in terms of US politics is a lost cause. This is the only correct response so far:

As for the US, it actually uses the term “liberal” correctly, the US just has thoroughly shut out the left to the point that liberal is the farthest “left” mainstream discourse is traditionally allowed to go.

Different culture, different meaning. But if I had to, I would say that “b” above is the one introduced by the American far-right into the political discourse.

Kimmel is back on air, and the American liberal establishment has heaved a collective sigh of relief. Not because liberals and their Democratic Party have learned from the incident and used it as an opportunity to galvanise meaningful opposition to Trump’s authoritarian surge, but precisely the opposite – because it allows them to go back to their blissful slumber, ignore reality, cling to cognitive dissonance, denial, ahistorical wishful thinking, and the complicity that is integral to white privilege within a white supremacist order.

In fact, liberals do not even substantially disagree with the core of Trump’s policies. After all, both right-wing and liberal elites are loyal servants of empire, the latter just give it a veneer of humanitarianism.

Both support policies that sustain the oppression of poor and marginalised people: the corporatisation of healthcare and education, labour exploitation, mass incarceration, militarised policing, censorship, corruption through corporate donations, and extractivism and militarism abroad. The liberals have put their spin on all these with talk about human rights, rule of law, and diversity.

Other than the semantics of “liberal” (substitute for Centrist or Democrat to taste), this is very well conceived. These are the same people who tone police and chastise the victims of being too angry, and will through as under the bus to appeal to “the middle of the tent”.

This piece is really a breath of fresh air. If Democrats were so precious about other topics as they are about their late night comedians, we would have not descended that far into fascism. And this is why they are actually complicit.

Somewhere I read that the concept of anti-christian bias can, and will, be used just like antisemitism is, as a broad moral justification for annihilating leftists. Didn’t hold much water when Trump signed his “antichristian bias” EO, but after the most recent events (Catholic church, Kirk, Mormon church), they are bound to dial up this angle. Also queer people: christian nationalists consider gay rights as a direct attack to their faith.

This is why your comment is the only one here that is worth responding to. The rest indulge themselves in a self-righteous and false sense of superiority. They make the same mistake with Trump, failing to see through the fuckery, and realize the consistent strategy of the christian nationalists backing him.

Obscure internet lore has it, that Watson mouthed “bar the one”, right after “here for ALL the witches”.

But this does not make a difference.

Todays news outlets if sent back to 1945: Underrated painter shot in the head by maniacal racist in Berlin. German outrage over frantic celebrations across Europe.

See, this is the bit I don’t get… If there are two people, like ANY two people, that their crimes and corruptions are enough to subvert the status quo, then what fucking difference does it make if they cover it up so hard. The message is still the same, that there is so much crime and corruption in government that a violent response is in order. Are they so stupid, or so confident?

It was too woke for them. It features People of Color.

They want to undo the making of the modern world because it came to allow the public existence of trans people. The horrors of Nazi rule on Europe dies out of living memory, and the rhetoric has a profound appeal to the human animal base instincts. So, yes, here we are.