EncryptKeeper

Kojima is only getting weirder.

I’m just using the app. I think it’s the nicest, most functional, and best looking music app outside of PlexAmp… however I absolutely agree with you that I really really wish it was just its own app… you can make this easier on yourself by editing the quick bar at the bottom of the app. When I open the Emby app it’s one tap to get to the music and then at least I don’t have to “dig through” it to get there.

I have an AppleTV4k Hooked up to my tv and 5.1 sound system so I can Airplay to that with my iPhone. Same goes for my HomePod in the kitchen when I’m cooking. If you’re not on iOS you can also cast to any device with an Emby app but there is less flexibility there.

I am in the same boat as you in that I’d love a dedicated app, I’m just waiting for one to come along that doesn’t suck. The FinAmp project had gotten me excited since it was ostensibly Jellyfin’s take on PlexAmp but it looks god awful and the functionality isn’t there. They have a beta version that’s a complete redesign but it also sucks terribly in my opinion.

Since you mentioned podcasts, AudioBookShelf as a back end with the “ShelfPlayer” app on iOS has been phenomenal. The ShelfPlayer app even works with my Oauth connection which is so awesome. Wish Emby or Jellyfin did that lol.

Emby. It is so far, the nicest music client on iOS that I’ve been able to find.

There is very obviously a language barrier issue at play here that people are ignoring just to take what he said at face value. There’s zero chance that what he meant was the game was too good and that as a result he wanted to make it worse.

He almost certainly meant something more along the lines of the plot, or something to do with the game mechanics were too streamlined, or otherwise not challenging enough in some way.

The first Death Stranding was controversial in that its gameplay was very in depth and communicated a mindset at the expense of wider appeal. Go to any social media post about the game and look at all the people who A. Dismissed it for being “boring” due to the gameplay decisions that were made and B. The other group of people who believed it to be a masterpiece, who might not have were the game more streamlined and generic, for example if it was built like an MGS-lite with package delivery mechanics.

If you took a lot of the more “tedious” but immersive features out of DS1 and added more generic combat the game would likely have a wider appeal, but those of us that really liked the little touches that were seen as “tedium” would have liked it less and that’s the kind of thing he has to be referring to DS2. Like adding a bunch of action and making the deliveries trivial to complete might make more people dig the game but nobody would truly love it the way DS1 was loved by its fans. Kojima is definitely a fart-sniffer but he does deliver and he very obviously sees himself as an artist, not a corporate exec who wants to make the line go up the fastest.

This will work fine over the web, but won’t work with clients.

I make only slightly less than that in American dollars and I’m not at all close to running a company. I’m very solidly lower middle class I will also not be buying a hour for another 5-6 years.

That is a very modest amount of money for his role.

It kinda seems like you don’t understand the actual technology.

You’re talking about things that you don’t understand on a fundamental level. Maybe stick things you do understand?

Tech bro is practically a slur and doesn’t refer to “dudes that just work in tech”

We don’t need to stop saying E2EE is safe, because it is. There is no arbitrary usage. Either it’s E2EE. If a company lies to you and tells you it’s E2EE and it’s not E2EE that’s not arbitrary usage, it’s just a lie.

I'm saying that a company can just arbitrarily decide (like you did) that the server is the "end" recipient (which I disagree with).

They cannot. Thats not how E2EE works. If they can arbitrarily decide that, then it isn’t E2EE.

That can be done for chat messages too.

It cannot, if you’re using E2EE.

You send the message "E2EE" to the server, to be stored there (like a file, unencrypted), so that the recipient(s) can - sometime in the future - fetch the message, which would be encrypted again, only during transport.

That’s not how E2EE works. What you are describing is encryption that is not end-to-end. E2EE was designed the solve the issue you’re describing.

This fully fits your definition for the cloud storage example.

It does not. Cloud storage is a product you’d use to store your data for your own use at your own discretion.

I would argue that the cloud provider is not the recipient of files uploaded there

It is if you uploaded files to it, like on purpose.

You’re confusing E2EE and non E2EE encryption.

No it doesn’t, and I defined E2EE exactly one way. E2EE stands for “End to end encryption”, which means it’s encrypted at one end, decrypted at the other end, and not in the middle.

It doesn’t matter if they store a copy of your message on an intermediary server, the keyword there is intermediary. They are not the recipient, so they should not have the ability to decrypt the content of the message, only the recipient should. If they are able to decrypt your message, despite not being the recipient, it’s not E2EE.

A cloud drive is an entirely different case because the cloud drive is not an intermediary. They literally are the second E in E2EE. A cloud drive can have the ability to decrypt your data and still be E2EE because they are the recipient. You both seem to be under the impression that a cloud drive is an “intermediary” between your devices but it’s not. It’s a destination.

To explain it a bit simpler, imagine we’re in elementary school sitting at our desks and you’re sitting two desks away from me with one person between us:

E2EE = I encrypt my note with a simple cipher that I shared with you and only you before class. I pass my note to the kid between us to pass to you. He can’t read the note, and if he writes down a copy of my note before passing it to you it doesn’t matter because he still won’t be able to read it because he’s doesn’t have the cipher because he’s not the recipient, you are. He passes you the note and you can do whatever you want with it, including decrypting it, because you know the cipher. All the E2EE has done is ensured the kid in the middle can’t read the note. It has nothing to do with whether or not you can read the note.

Zero Access Encryption = I encrypt my note with a cipher that only I know. The kid in the middle can’t read this note, and neither can you. Then I use E2EE to encrypt that with a different cipher, the one that you do know, and hand the note to the kid in the middle to hand to you. The kid in the middle can’t read the note, and neither can you.