mr moose

22 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

That still doesn't take choice away from consumers, which is what I'm talking about. You as a consumer have the choice to not buy an iPhone if you don't want that. Idk why people act like having an iPhone is a necessity.

It does though. When developers have to incur a 30% fee for selling to you then they increase the cost by 30%,  that directly effects the consumer.  When developers have limits placed on how and what their app can do, then that totally effects the product consumers use.

Consumers are only half the market, people who make and sell products are the other half.  You can not put limitations and costs onto one without it effecting the other.    This is a fact born out in ever other market place and industry.  

1 hour ago, Stahlmann said:

You still haven't said in what way they have too much control,

 

When they block developers from half the market unless those developers curtail to excessive demands,  then they have too much control.  When I can buy a mobile app direct from the developer and install it on an iPhone without apple taking a 30% cut or forcing me to use their app store, then I will start to consider that they have relinquished said control.

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Sinofsky is a massive twat. I am not surprised that he is strongly against the DMA, a piece of legislation trying to keep giant tech companies from abusing their positions of power to lock users into their ecosystems. That is exactly what Sinofsky was trying to push (and in some regards succeeded) when he was at Microsoft.

 

I also think he is being a bit silly or maybe disingenuous when he says the legislation is "clearly aimed at specific US companies" and then goes ahead and lists companies like Samsung, ByteDance, Alibaba, AliExpress, Booking.com, and Zalando as also being affected. Is he aware that those companies aren't American? I mean, it is Sinofsky we're talking about so I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't know Samsung isn't from the US...

 

Maybe the issue isn't that "the legislation is aimed at US companies because the EU is evil and want to harm America!" but rather "a lot of the big companies that are abusing their power are from the US"?

 

 

There is so much bullshit in this article it's not even funny.

Things like claiming Apple has never abused their position of power and that no consumer has been harmed by the way Apple acts. I would argue that the 30% cut Apple takes is an abuse of their position. Especially since they forbid developers from telling users about for example cheaper rates on their website. Telling developers "no, you are not allowed to tell your users that they can subscribe to the service without also paying us, Apple, is not allowed and we will take away everything from you if you do" is not exactly a friendly and non-abusive way of handling your users or developers. Sinofsky might think that's not abusive because he looks up to Apple a lot and wanted Microsoft to be like Apple, but if he is going to claim that's perfectly fine, good and not an abuse of power then he is in my eyes a dumbass.

when it looks like shit, smells like shit and tastes like shit, the only people who claim it is a bunch of flowers are the companies making money from it and the mentally twisted kids who don't know they have been fooled by the marketing.  The rest of us know shit when it's shoved in our faces.

19 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

Look at the difference between now and just a year ago. It's amazing how fast these things evolve. Do you still remember the "Will Smith eating pasta" video from about a year ago?

 

I've been an avid Google user before, and Bing, with its copilot feature, has completely replaced "googling" for me. It can search through dozens of pages and filter out the most relevant information in an instant. Doing the same research myself would probably take hours. It's not perfect, of course, and there are errors from time to time, but generally Copilot has got it right far more often than it has got it wrong. These horror threads about LLMs hallucinating are often after quite a lot of prompts or long conversations and jumping to different topics mid-conversation. If you just ask a normal question and then 2 or 3 follow up questions (and create a new thread whenever you want to switch to another topic) then there are almost no problems.

 

Personally, I'm all for the advances in AI, ML or whatever umbrella term you want to use. It makes the work of developers both more accessible and more efficient. And of course, increased efficiency means that some jobs will be cut. That's how it works. Where was the outcry when assembly lines were taken over by robot arms? I guess it's just that the average assembly line worker isn't a Twitter user, so that's the main reason why no one cared about their lost jobs.

History tells us quite emphatically that when humans do the shit jobs for shit pay we suffer way more than when we develop machines to do it for us.  e.g   Australia has lost a significant amount of automotive manufacturing (from 50+ down to 18, and of that 18 half are EV companies that started business in the last 5 years), our unemployment and average wages have not dropped and our net worth has only gone up.  The average unemployed dropout in Australia has a flat screen tv, a smart phone and 3 meals a day.   A properly managed economy with good social welfare and medical services will prevent nearly all negative effects of job redundancy.

I don't think he is wrong, I mean look how far it has come in the last 5 years alone then follow the trajectory. 

Also people can't have it both ways, you can't argue it will take too many jobs and at the same time argue it will never be good enough to replace humans for the one thing it likely will be best at (language interpretation).

This won't be the first time people have to eat their hats.  

On 2/15/2024 at 9:18 PM, leadeater said:

The odds of it actually being obsolete and also not recouping the investment is extraordinarily low though. Fab equipment won't even be going in 5 years from now either, I have no idea what their planned time frames are but I've seen enough large buildings get built of far less complexity and requirements to know ain't nothing happening for ages.

I've seen it too, I've built those factories as well.  Most of the time it's because the companies expending the capital are not big enough to weather all the issues that inevitably occur on the way and they stumble or they are so big that they can afford to change plans mid exercise and just sit on the project.  I seem to recall Intel did that with fab42,  they started building and planning then shelved it,  then started again.  And to be honest I don't even know if they finally moved in any equipment in the end.

BHP has done it twice at Olympic damn as well.   but don't get me started on that (single largest Uranium deposit in the world and nuclear is not viable/feasible in Australia???? WTF to that) 

8 minutes ago, leadeater said:

What makes you think TSMC etc can't invest in the new technology? The majority of fabrication is in the building and supporting infrastructure like clean atmosphere, clean water, large power delivery. All the things required for a different material not silicon.

 

Like I said old fab technology is never useless or unprofitable overnight, they still have 800nm fabrication, yea 800nm. TSMC make more wafer per month 20nm and up than they do below 20nm.

I never said TSMC can't invest.  I said it would be a shame if a new company invested the GDP of a large country only to have that investment obsoleted long before it paid for itself.

On 2/13/2024 at 10:27 PM, leadeater said:

Nah, bad press and a few problems isn't going to make them go anywhere.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Defense,_Space_%26_Security

 

They will be more the fineeeeeee

 

Those aren't very good examples. Those are end product companies with products and technologies easily replaced. Fabricators are like Banks, Pharmaceutical and Food/Agriculture companies, essential foundational companies that are on the list of the oldest. While fabricators are "new" I don't see computer driven society going anywhere so as long as we need to "compute stuff" then TSMC etc will continue to exist.

TSMC will continue to exist while there is a demand for product that can be made with their lithography infrastructure.   But any business can be caught out setting up to produce a product that becomes obsolete long before the cap ex has been recouped.  

On 2/12/2024 at 7:49 PM, leadeater said:

Doesn't matter, like I said it's not any different for TSMC etc. Nobody is going to be any worse or better off. In fact if/when that does happen so long as it's not ASML again selling to everyone then they/we will be better off.

 

But until then building the clean facilities comes first, then you buy equipment off ASML, whatever that may be at the time.

 

We are a long way off non-silicon fabrication at mass scale with end chip performance better than silicon based. Not a huge concern for anyone really.

On 2/12/2024 at 8:08 PM, Mark Kaine said:

well they're trying since decades... with "quantum computing"... it doesn't seem to be going anywhere, a calculator from 1960 is more powerful lol.

On 2/12/2024 at 8:28 PM, Sauron said:

Quantum computing is not meant to be a replacement for traditional computing, it's an application specific technology that is multiple orders of magnitude better than traditional computing at those specific tasks.

Currently there's no reason to believe this will happen in the near future, nor has Altman provided any.

I wasn't arguing it was going to happen, just that silicon may not be a "forever" investment,  especially at the cost of 4T.  don't forget that there are only two countries with GDP worth more than 5T.

19 hours ago, leadeater said:

That's the same as everyone else and older processes aren't useless, not even after a decade. That's really the point, anyone can design chips, few can actually make them.

But what if a new technology obsoletes ALL silicon based chips?

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Feels more like just a play to get in to the fabrication market, AI/ML etc won't be the hot thing forever and will vastly change over time while fabricators do not change and can make whatever chips of the moment.

 

You get in to AI/ML for the today, you get in to fabrication for the tomorrow/forever.

Right up till they develop a process that doesn't use current lithography tech.  Then you have a few trillion dollars worth of scrap no one wants.  People are still trying to develop biological matter for information storage and who knows where quantum will take us.

10 hours ago, Lunar River said:

Sorry but i would think if the US really wants to get into a trade war with China…China would probably win

We had a little trade war with them not long ago,  they tried to stop buying our coal,  they went back to it after they realized they had no choice.   I feel a little more comfortable about our economy after that.

19 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

yes of course,  I'm just saying this being europe its unlikely to help to say basically "i didn't know" ...

which is good and sad at the same time, good because people need to be more vigilant, but sad because it fosters a judicial system that doesn't take into account how easy it is to break the law when some laws are confusingly obscure and not well publicised (not referring to this particular one but in a more in general sense).

22 hours ago, leadeater said:

 

Just because it is reasonable doesn't actually make it any less flawed. Widescale misunderstanding still results in misunderstanding, reasonability around it doesn't change that.

Actually it does.  Because in the sense I have been using the term and to what situational end,  flawed or wrong is irrelevant, if enough people believe said notion (for any reason) then someone is way less likely to be found guilty of intentionally causing trouble due to said beliefs.  That's just how it works.

18 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

re: the whole jurisdictional "reasonable" thing... that only works if its also plausible, at least here in Germany, and apparently also in spain!

 

everything you write down is per definition not actually "private" (has never been throughout all of history) 

 

especially in social media it would be "reasonable" to expect that someone *will* leak it lol.

 

there's no such thing as a "private joke"

 

Ahh, but that's where it hasn't actually been tested on the digital front.  There is no reason why the same application of law does not apply to digital services as it does postal or otherwise.

18 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

so i dont doubt that you can get away with this kind of argumentation in certain jurisdictions,  but not in others, and since this is in europe, this kind of argumentation is almost irrelevant,  worst case, it will make the punishment worse actually cause the judge will think you're trolling them with the pie in the sky excuses... 

 

"torheit schützt nicht vor strafe"

 

"folly doesn't protect from punishment"

 

 

(im pretty sure, worded differently of course,  this is an actual law around here lol)

 

Some jurisdictions you don't even get a fair trial.  However I feel my original point still stands.

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

No it is not, that is literally my whole point.

yes, but your point seems irrelevant too.   Reasonable expectation doesn't rely on anything being factual, just the reasonable outcome given the information you have.

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

I'm not saying your argument hinges on encryption, you honestly do not understand the point.

 

You quoted a discussion about E2EE encryption and referred to is as being about either or not Snapchat is encrypted in a way that implies that Snapchat communication many not at all in any way be encrypted.

 

Now you may ask why this is important? Because if you are talking about aspects around expectations of who can view a Snapchat message then it is important to ensure that people not not mistakenly believe that it were possible for Airport security or British Security Services to internet Snapchat communication and read the message which they cannot.

 

This is important because it narrows in on who could possibly have seen the message, by eliminating those who could not.

I only showed that is is reasonable for an average person to expect privacy in a snapchat group message.   I did that by pointing to tech enthusiast discussing it.  If tech enthusiasts thought is was encrypted (type of encryption is irrelevant) and thus was private then how do you propose to claim that an average person should believe different?

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

I understand your argument does not hinge on encryption, I already said that. Because Snapchat calls it a private message and talks about how only those in the private chat group can see the messages obviously sets this type of expectation, the problem is their front end marketing material, their application itself and the UI wording the use does not match the actual specifics in their Privacy Policies which you must read to actually know how privacy is actually handled.

So you understand that the average person would reasonably expect their message to be private because that is what snapchat tells them?

That's all I am arguing, most reasonable people with an average understanding of their devices and services would believe the message was not able to be read by anyone other than the recipient. 

The damage caused by his message was (without making assumptions) not intentional and not an expected outcome.  

3 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

 

well it is based on unreasonable information, that doesn't make this group unreasonable, but their understanding of the matter (since its based on false or unreasonable assumptions)  

Ahh,  the problem here is that reasonable expectation is not defined as a hard objective fact.  it is the impression an individual has based on the information they have been given.  If you raise a child to think blue is green and green is red, then it is a reasonable expectation that they will call blue things green and green things red.  Truth of color names is irrelevant.  

 That is why the judicial system in many countries refers to "reasonable expectation" (sometimes referred to as "good faith") as a subjective expectation rather than an objective one (people cannot determine/question if the information they have been given is wrong without already knowing if it is or not). If the average person thinks a private message is private because it's in the name, because apple told them privacy was number one on iphone, because mozilla said they make you safer because ETC ETC ETC),  then that is what the courts accept as reasonable expectation. Whether that impression is based on unreasonable information or not is irrelevant.   In most legal situations it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that anyone else in the defendants position would have believed their message was not private and would be read by people empowered by law to enact on it.

The Australian law reform commission has a decent article on this topic as it is hotly debated,  one of the key issues raised (which is evident in this thread) is the fact that when someone says something really nasty that causes great offense, the people who are trying to decide if that person had a reasonable expectation of privacy become biased,  because they personally take offense at what was said.   In this situation the basic question is; did this bloke mean for anyone other than his friends to get his message?  If he sent it believing it was private and that no one was watching then he did not commit a crime in most jurisdictions.   And this is regardless what he said or the consequences because it was not him who made that message public.  

19 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

its not contradicting - im indeed saying 2 things:

 

A) if you've been around long enough you know that these messages can be read by whoever, and that the services obviously also tell you about it.

 

and B) that younger people haven't been around when these things were invented and thus neither have the experience nor the knowledge, and of course they're not reading the "fine print" because who does this right. /s

 

 

so i don't see a contradiction here?

 

really late 90s is when this stuff emerged and that's when you learned about the dos and donts... without being judgemental, i think this stuff is much harder to learn nowadays, simply because there's so much more stuff - incidentally we *knew* back then that stuff like facebook is the devil, ironically our parents did not... (and became the users of this crap, and now its apparently younger generations too, who, again, just like our parents don't really understand the internet and its dangers... imho... ) 

Correct, but you cannot claim the existence of people in group A makes the understanding that people from group B have unreasonable.  If you have no idea how any of this works but have been told your messages are private, then your conclusion that any message you send will only be read by the recipient is a very reasonable position to have.

@leadeater  you are confusing me pointing to a discussion regarding encryption with an argument that hinges on encryption.

46 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

yes, of course, by definition yes! 

 

this by itself is correct,  but what i said about common knowledge , since decades,  is also correct and more relevant here. most of these services, or however you want to name them, including this forum, even tell you this when you sign up "private messages are not private"...

 

i agree the name of course can be misleading,  but only if someone has no prior knowledge how this stuff works,  since their inception private messages never have been truly private, its more like a person to person message and of course the service provider can, and probably will, read them.  

 

again, i think its a sad truth,  but younger generations don't really understand the internet,  it's just a thing that's been always there for them, and they probably don't learn enough about it in school either. they can use it, they know "it works" , but not how.

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry but your post seems to contradict itself.

You start by saying they should know because of the fine print (which no one reads BTW), but then you say these younger users are ignorant of it all.

10 hours ago, leadeater said:

I understand that but like I said nobody has said encryption is not used, only that E2EE is not. That is the point and clarification I am making because you have actually said people here are saying encryption is not being used on the context of E2EE rather than outright zero encryption being used.

Irrelevant to my point.

10 hours ago, leadeater said:

Most people don't know or have even heard of E2EE. Point is stop saying and using that as a point to back your position/point because here on this from it actually is important to not incorrectly state or imply encryption is not being used because people here do care and do understand so if you are saying encryption is not being used  then they are going to think "wiretapping" is possible when it's not which will just lead to another round of blaming and talking about the wrong thing.

Again you missing my point.

10 hours ago, leadeater said:

People were already mislead in this topic from the start that "security services" could intercept this private chat when they absolutely cannot. The whole situation is worse because the person sending the message wasn't connected to public wifi at all yet look at the news report headline. Notice any false or misleading information there?

Which is what seems to be the problem for many people to get their head around.  If you read the entirety of my discussion with wanderingfool you will see that that same confusing and misleading in this topic is why you cannot claim that any reasonable person would have considered their private message to be intercepted.   There are simply too many different understandings of how tech works to be able to claim any one person should have known it would be read by someone other than the recipient.   The basic fact of the matter is there are just as many people out there who think a private message is private (funnily enough) as there are who think every message is being screened.

10 hours ago, leadeater said:

I know but you keep throwing in the technical point about things not being encrypted, there is no better point for you to make than "it was a private chat".

No I don't, you've misinterpreted my point.

10 hours ago, leadeater said:

I'm not missing your point I just don't think you are understand the clarification I have been making and why. Your quotes at the top of your post are literally exactly what I have been saying. Look at the url link and look at what those two people are saying and talking about, E2EE vs Encryption aka the specific implementation of encryption. None of them have actually said Snapchat communication protocols are not encrypted "at all" aka clear text.

Your "clarification" does not address what I said or why I said it.

10 hours ago, leadeater said:

I did not say it is negligence, I said that thinking is flawed. If people actually stopped and thought about it, "I am using a service I do not have control over and everything I do goes through their service while I use it" with a little common sense would figure out that this service likely can see everything. People just don't do this.

No you didn't, but that was the argument I was making when you tried to clarify.  The problem is you obviously don't understand the discussion I was having or the point I was making because you keep talking about technicalities that don't actually change anything.

10 hours ago, leadeater said:

E2EE is the minority, this is not how "the internet operates". There are some services that offer or claim this implementation of encryption but I would put it to everyone that verifying this is not always possible or easy and there is no better operating rule than "the service owner can see it if they want to".

 

Which again for the record saying exactly what he did where he did etc even on a E2EE messaging service is still stupid. "Welcome to Australia, unlock your phone".... "you are under arrest".

Again How the internet actually operates is moot to my argument.  What snap chat does is also irrelevant, the only thing that is relevant is the question: "would a reasonable person assume a private message was actually private and would not be read by anyone else"?   I say the answer to that is no, because this thread and the debates in it prove that there are too many different opinions on how the message system actually works to be able then claim that the average person should have known better.

16 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

nah, that makes the person unreasonable by definition,  on the internet nothing is private, everyone knows this (should at least) and that this kind of "joke" likely triggers some automated detection systems should also be clear to anyone, which is why you don't make "jokes" like this especially *while actually boarding a real life plane*... but i guess this "reasonable" chap found out the hard way. 

So basically you think every facebopok user is unreasonable?  That's not how laws work when they rely on "what a reasonable person would believe/do".   Given half the population believe a private message is just that it is reasonable to believe that this guy also thought the same.

7 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

but nowadays people don't know this stuff, they think everything is "encrypted"

I don't get it, how can you believe this to be the case but also hold that everybody should "know better"?

What people believe does not have to be true for it to be a reasonable belief.

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

People aren't saying it's not encrypted, people are talking about whether or not Snapchat can themselves read it, that being in transit or at rest (stored on Snapchat systems).

On 1/25/2024 at 12:48 AM, Sauron said:

Text messages on snapchat are not encrypted:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/01/09/snapchat-adds-end-to-end-encryption-protect-users-messages/

 

On 1/25/2024 at 12:51 AM, callyozzie said:

 

Interesting, weird they dont e2e encrypt the message, but the media is. Still, would they not be encrypted with HTTPS?

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

The only people that have made any noises about encryption not be used are the defendant (the student) and the media, because they are saying that the public Wifi could have been the cause of all this when it's in truth not. Not only is it not viable on a technical level the student themselves have already said they were not using the public Wifi which also lead to the statement of possibility that one of the private chat group members were, also not all that likely.

It doesn't matter who said what about it in the media or courts etc.  I was showing why it is reasonable for someone to assume a message they send through snapchat to a closed group would remain private.

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Most people use their mobile data connection not public wifi on phones, there is little reason to assume any of the other students weren't doing the same behavior of this student i.e. not using the public wifi.

 

Public wifi is simply not a factor in this story.

 

The posts you are referring to are again like I said around the very specific type of encryption implementations used, nobody here I have seen has said encryption is outright not used. So I must point out if someone is saying Snapchat can read the messages that is not saying encryption is not used.

 

Encryption is simply a side bar to whether or not it is reasonable to expect that a private chat group would only be seen by the members of it which I have always agreed that in general is a reasonable assumption to make even though I am saying that is flawed thinking. It's reasonable because it's called "private" and it's also reasonable because that's what most people think, it's also flawed thinking by everyone that happens to think in this way.

 

It is perfectly reasonable to say and point out people think in these ways and it is also perfectly reasonable to point out people need to be better educated and informed on these matters since it would avoid situations like this. If you want to make a crass joke about terror attacks while in an airport to people who are also in the airport maybe it is a better idea to do it in person rather than an online platform, even if I think that is still ill-advised. 

I think you are missing my point all together.  In reference to encryption I said quite clearly:

Quote

I don't even care whether it is or not, the point is if tech enthusiasts think it is then it is reasonable for a lay person to think that also.

The position I was defending was not a technical one, it was simply showing how it is unreasonable to assume someone of negligence when any other reasonable person would also have made the same assumptions.

I looked up the jamicon parts and apparently they were 10,000 hour rated at 105.    Given this unit has not likely even done 4000 hours in static temp controlled environment, I am going to assume something at least is less quality than it could have been.  Especially if several have gone at once.

But I won't know that till I pull them out and test them properly.   I have ordered rubycon and panasonic all with 105 ratings and the longest hour ratings I could source. I think the lowest one is 7000. 

Thanks for the help guys.

16 hours ago, leadeater said:

Is that what anyone is trying to prove? Not that I know of. All that is being said is a friend reporting the "joke" is definitely on the table of possibilities and actually possible unlike the news headline and the claim that it was because of public wifi.

Wanderingfool was arguing they only need to show it was reasonable to expect that his joke would lead to trouble.  My statement was in defense that if tech enthusiasts are divided over it being possible or not for snap to be spied on means you can't reasonable expect anyone to think it would definitely be.  Thus you have to essentially prove he thought his friends would dob him in in order to show he was reckless or not.

16 hours ago, leadeater said:

It is encrypted and Snapchat is protected from "wire tapping" thereby "security reading the message because he was on public wifi" is actually impossible.

 

We can wax lyrical about the difference between End to End  Encryption (E2EE) versus Encryption but the simple fact is here in this situation either of the two prevents "wiretapping" of Snapchat messages.

 

As it stands today Snapchat group messages are not E2EE so Snapchat and only Snapchat can read those messages outside of those included in the group chat, the communication from the Snapchat App to Snapchat and other Snapchat users is still encrypted.

As I said before, the discussion was questioning if it was reasonable to expect that such a message sent in the way it was to the people it was would lead to this.  Given this thread has posts both saying it is encrypted and that it isn't encrypted (debating if it's possible to accuse him of being irresponsible) proves that it is not reasonable to assume this guy had any belief that his message would lead to the outcome it did.   Because if anyone in this thread believes that snapchat is encrypted and thus his message was not intercepted then that by itself shows it is reasonable to assume this bloke believed his message would only be seen by friends and not cause any damages.  

2 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Really though?  How many times do you have secrets come out from friend groups that was supposed to be "just between us" etc.

They do come out, but not immediately which is what you'd have to expect if you were to pursue the idea that he was reasonably informed that he was breaking a law.  And again it is not the expectation that said joke would be made public.

2 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

There actually are people in my friend group who I know if I were to send a message like that as a joke they would as though it wasn't a joke (because hyperbole situational awareness is beyond their comprehension).  As an example, someone joked about small pox, and she actually believed they had somehow contracted it.  It's actually the same person that my friend group also jokes about that "if you want a secret to be known, tell her and everyone that both you and her know will know the secret within a few days".

You are assuming that your friends who would do that have the same mindset as this guys friends.  All we know is he made a joke to friends, you can't prove he knew they would have likely reported him for it. 

2 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

They don't actively say they are monitoring people, but they don't do what you said that they tell people all messages are secure (that's the social media companies that do that part).

I didn;t claim they tell people that, I said they "go out of their way to have you believe"  They often talk about such access to be only for criminal activity leaving the general public with the view that "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear".  It's all about what is not said most of the time.

2 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Like all the times the governments around the world push for things like legislative back doors for encryption so they can still perform what amounts to wiretaps...even the concept that we have wiretaps in our everyday vernacular.

 

While they don't promote that they do active surveillance and try intercepting data (harder for them once Snowden's report came out and companies like Google started encryption between data servers even in their datacenter); they most certainly don't go about telling people it's secure.

And yet even in this thread amongst people who believe they are well informed there are two distinct opposing statements regarding whether snapchat is encrypted or not.  I don't even care whether it is or not, the point is if tech enthusiasts think it is then it is reasonable for a lay person to think that also.

3 hours ago, mariushm said:

Jamicon is not that bad, it just depends on where the capacitors are used in the circuit, if they're not abused they can last a long time.

 

The thing with power supplies is that companies often don't make them in house, they just go to an OEM that makes power supplies... companies like FSP (Fortron), Delta, Chicony, Meanwell ... this way they don't have to pay for all kinds of certifications and tests that need to be done for various countries... it's cheaper.  That's the same reason why lots of products simply come with a wallwart adapter or a laptop style brick power supply - these can be made by oem companies that handle all the certifications and safety tests.

 

It's possible Behringer made a contract and bought let's say 100k power supplies and the contract specified a model or minimum performance levels (efficiency, minimum warranty, max failure rate etc) but maybe it didn't go into specifics like "only these 2-3 brands and series of capacitors are permitted into this part of the circuit" and the OEM may have switched to second option capacitors to either save money or because original part couldn't be sourced - it's normal to have alternate parts just in case one is out of stock or has too long delivery time.

Your last paragraph is most likely the truth.  Given Behringer are close the the cheapest for everything I'd be betting a pretty penny that if they did outsource the PSU that they screwed the price down so far the contractor would be looking to cut costs.   Having said that, it's not outside of Behringers MO to simply take an existing product and copy it completely.  Either way there generally isn't enough meat in the end sale price to fill me with confidence that they have not cut any corners.