Concrete example of threat modeling: if someone found out I was using Signal, for any reason at all, would that cause problems for me?

If yes, then Signal is not a good option. If no, then Signal may be appropriate. Why? Because in their documentation, they explicitly state that while messages are confidential, the fact that you’re using Signal cannot be hidden, and so they don’t make that guarantee.

Tbf, can’t the other party mess it up with signal too?

Yes, but this is where threat modeling comes into play. Grossly simplified, developing a threat model means to assess what sort of attackers you reasonably expect to make an attempt on you. For some people, their greatest concern is their conservative parents finding out that they’re on birth control. For others, they might be a journalist trying to maintain confidentiality of an informant from a rogue sheriff’s department in rural America. Yet others face the risk of a nation-state’s intelligence service trying to find their location while in exile.

For each of these users, they have different potential attackers. And Signal is well suited for the first two, and only alright against the third. After all, if the CIA or Mossad is following someone around IRL, there are other ways to crack their communications.

What Signal specifically offers is confidentiality in transit, meaning that all ISPs, WiFi networks, CDNs, VPNs, script skiddies with Wireshark, and network admins in the path of a Signal convo cannot see the contents of those messages.

Can the messages be captured at the endpoints? Yes! Someone could be standing right behind you, taking photos of your screen. Can the size or metadata of each message reveal the type of message (eg text, photo, video)? Yes, but that’s akin to feeling the shape of an envelope. Only through additional context can the contents be known (eg a parcel in the shape of a guitar case).

Signal also benefits from the network effect, because someone trying to get away from an abusive SO has plausible deniability if they download Signal on their phone (“all my friends are on Signal” or “the doctor said it’s more secure than email”). Or a whistleblower can send a message to a journalist that included their Signal username in a printed newspaper. The best place to hide a tree is in a forest. We protect us.

My main issue for signal is (mostly iPhone users) download it “just for protests” (ffs) and then delete it, but don’t relinquish their acct, so when I text them using signal it dies in limbo as they either deleted the app or never check it and don’t allow notifs

Alas, this is an issue with all messaging apps, if people delete the app without closing their account. I’m not sure if there’s anything Signal can do about this, but the base guarantees still hold: either the message is securely delivered to their app, or it never gets seen. But the confidentiality should always be maintained.

I’m glossing over a lot of cryptographic guarantees, but for one-to-one or small-group private messaging, Signal is the best mainstream app at the moment. For secure group messaging, like organizing hundreds of people for a protest, that is still up for grabs, because even if an app was 100% secure, any one of those persons can leak the message to an attacker. More participants means more potential for leaks.

When I see E2EE and XMPP mentioned, I think of this blog post by Soatok, outlining some very odd cryptographic choices in XMPP + OMEMO: https://soatok.blog/2024/08/04/against-xmppomemo/

I would very much like to see a richer playing field than just Signal for private messaging, but it’s a tough nut to crack. For exactly which aspect that turns me away from XMPP for E2EE, I think this nails it down:

you only need check whether OMEMO is on by default (it isn’t), or whether OMEMO can be turned off even if your client supports it (it can).

When the competition is Signal, these sorts of details matter a lot.

You might consider posting to !indiegaming@lemmy.world as well

Having previously been on the reviewing side of job applications, if you have GitHub/Codeberg repos with your work, please, please, please include those links somewhere on the resume, ideally spelled out and also clickable in the PDF. It’s a neat trick to showcase more work than what fits on a page.

Although the non-technical recruiters might gloss over links, the technical reviewers very much look at your code examples. Why? Because seeing your coding style and hygiene, Git workflow and commit messages, documentation, and overall approach to iterative improvement of a codebase is far more revealing than anything that AI-nonsense coding tests can show.

So while this won’t necessarily get your resume past the first gate, always be thinking about the different audiences whom your resume might be passed around to, within the prospective organization you’re applying to.

I use LibreOffice has my word processor, and no substantial amounts of automation to speak of. And each time I intend to submit a resume, I save off a new copy and tailor it specifically for the recipient employer. After all, what’s relevant and worth highlighting (not literally!) to one employer won’t be the same as for another.

Yes, I’m aware that a lot of recruiters/reviewers use LLMs as a first-pass filter, but that’s precisely why my submission should be crafted by hand each time: if it’s an LLM, then I want its checkbox exercises to be easily met, and if it’s a human, I want to put my best foot forward.

In days of yore, where paper resumes were circulated by hand to prospective employers at career fairs, having a bespoke resume for each would have been difficult to pull off. But with PDF submissions, there’s no reason not to gear your submission to exactly the skills that a company is looking for.

To be clear, tailoring a resume does not mean adding fake or hallucinated qualifications that you do not possess. Rather, it means that you copyedit the resume so that your relevant skills are readily apparent. If you already listed an example project from a prior employer or internship, but a different project would better align to the prospective employer, consider swapping out the example for max appeal. Bullet-points are particularly easy to rearrange: if you have web-dev skills and that’s desirable by the employer, those should be moved up the list of bullet-points. And so on.

Although resumes are now mostly PDFs, the custom remains – both as an informal fairness criteria between applicants, but also because it would be more to read – that one’s resume should fit on a single sheet of US Letter or A4 paper, barring unique exceptions like professors that have long lists of published papers or systems architects that hold patent numbers. And so the optimization problem is how to most effectively use the space on that sheet of digital paper.

I’m informed the British do read the time 6:30 as “half six”, a shortened form of “half past six”. So “inch an a half” might become “incuax”, pronounced as “in-cha” and containing the unnecessary U, and an X for that Norman/French faux lineage.

Naturally, Americans would instead pronounce it as “in-coh”, which would destroy any understanding when also speaking about Incoterms.

Oh, also: 1 1/2 inches is 1/8th of a foot. 3/4" is 1/16th of a foot.

It’s not often that I’m surprised by some of the divisors that appear in US Customary or Imperial units, but I’m now shuddering to imagine what sort of horrific system of unit names have been built atop this fact of twos-powers fractions of a foot.

Knowing the English, they’ll likely have invented a name during the medieval time for 1/8th of a foot (1.5 inches), like dozebarleycorn, since a barleycorn is already 1/3 of an inch. And then 3/4" might be a demidoze, or some such insanity. The horror, the horror.

Although I suspect this particular quirk of dimensional lumber stems from the British, the result is not too unexpected for modern-day America. After all, we (insanely) deal with sales tax the same way, where the advertised price is pre-tax, and consumers have to do math if they want to compute the final bill before reaching the checkstand.

So having to measure the lumber to acquire its actual dimensions is entire above-board [pun intended] for anything beyond putting together a wood-frame structure.

Let me make sure I understand everything correctly. You have an OpenWRT router which terminates a Wireguard tunnel, which your phone will connect to from somewhere on the Internet. When the Wireguard tunnel lands within the router in the new subnet 192.168.2 0/24, you have iptable rules that will:

• Reject all packets on the INPUT chain (from subnet to OpenWRT)
• Reject all packets on the OUTPUT chain (from OpenWRT to subnet)
• Route packets from phone to service on TCP port 8080, on the FORWARD chain
• Allow established connections, on the FORWARD chain
• Reject all other packets on the FORWARD chain

So far, this seems alright. But where does the service run? Is it on your LAN subnet or the isolated 192.168.2.0/24 subnet? The diagram you included suggests that the service runs on an existing machine on your LAN, so that would imply that the router must also do address translation from the isolated subnet to your LAN subnet.

That’s doable, but ideally the service would be homed onto the isolated subnet. But perhaps I misunderstood part of the configuration.

It took me a few reads to internalize everything that you wrote, and it’s food-for-thought for when I level-up to adding another machine to my garage. It does seem that I can wait on the jointer for a long while, and on the thickness planer until my projects start using wider boards or I get really tired of hand planing those.

Good to know that the combo planer/jointer is not exactly optimal, and I’ll have to keep an eye out for either separate machine that happens to be for sale on the used market.

I have no other tool that could take a quarter inch off the thickness of a 10 inch wide board; the only tool I have that is appropriate for this task is my thickness planer.

As it happens, this was precisely what I also had to do for an earlier project, and I ended up using my router table to do it. It was an awful slog of a time, and I hope to never repeat that ever again. Throughout the ordeal, I kept thinking about how a CNC mill would have made quick work of it, but I suspect a used thickness planer is going to be a lot more affordable for me

If a normal bench plane is a chisel wearing a pair of steel toed boots, a shoulder plane is a chisel wearing strappy wedge heeled sandals.

This made me laugh, but was also effective at explaining the difference, as did some more image results that specifically show the iron of each plane.

At last, my collection of 3M Super 77 comes in handy!

Yes, most of what I typically have on hand is dimensional lumber. So it’s already mostly alright, but the surfaces might not all be square and I need to figure out ways to keep those errors from propagating.

Oh, I see. So a shoulder plane’s blade actually has exposure on three sides, and can cut the bottom and the sides simultaneously?

Ah! That makes much more sense

I figured that a shoulder plane and shooting board would be two disparate tools, but for my own knowledge, I haven’t figured out why exactly a shoulder plane with a shooting board doesn’t work. Is it because a shoulder plane tends to be short?

Thanks for this additional detail! I’m currently leaning on going with the shoulder plane, with intention to add a machine planer in future for dealing with larger material all at once. Would that be a sound plan?

Thank you for the detailed clarification!

In review, it sounds like a shoulder plane would prove its worth for very small, fiddly work that a general-purpose plane couldn’t reach, but it would be slower for flattening the poor stock that I often use. Would this mean a shoulder plane plus a machine planer be a reasonable combination, with the latter introduced later to enable larger-scale flattening?

The body of the plane is square to the sole, making 90° easily achievable by riding the side of the plane on an adjacent 90° surface

This might be the feature which sways my decision, since I think it means I can devise a simple jig for any size of stock by clamping to a known flat surface (or even just a surface that’s more flat than the stock) and guide the shoulder plane that way, to prepare for joining. I didn’t mention in my original post, but I also occasionally do “coarse metalworking” where all the stock I use is already nice and straight and flat, which would make good guiding surfaces for a shoulder plane (on wood lol).

Hmm, I think a nearby recycled building materials store might have exactly this. Do I understand correctly that this offcut would only be used as a smooth, abrasive surface?