I would strongly disagree that sex is how most people quench their need for physical touch.

Not being able to hug my grandparents during the pandemic took a big emotional toll on me.

I pet my dog, hug my kids and shake hands with my friends. These are all examples of how I use touch to show affection in my life.

However, I strongly agree that your preferences should be completely respected especially in a business setting.

Seems to me that the ubiquity of such greetings across all cultures would imply that you're the exception here, no?

A lot of cultures bow rather than shake hands.

Other cultures require you to get a lot closer than a handshake.

I don't see the contradiction. These are orthogonal issues.

Apple protects customer privacy from app authors through strong access controls and permissions model.

Side-loaded apps would benefit from all of these protections just the same as apps from the app store.

Your comment implies the only thing Apple has done to improve privacy and security is curation of the app store.

It's interesting you say that, because for me personally, security is one of the main benefits of a Google account.

If this is the main motivation here then I would look into Google's advanced protection program that allows you to lock down your account with two Yubikeys and disables all other forms of 2FA.

As far as I'm aware, you still can't use a YubiKey to secure a Proton Mail account.

Interesting point of view - for me security and privacy was the primary reason I moved from Google Account. I moved to Microsoft 365 Family. I can connect using Yubikeys - one that lives in my keychain and the second stored security at home as a backup.

The way I see it, perhaps I can get some marginal privacy benefits from another provider, however I'd be compromising on security.

I am of the opinion that Google have the best security in the industry, have the best incentives, most investment and are pretty much guaranteed to be around in 20 years from now.

The most high value accounts in my life around banking, investment, taxes etc are all tied to my personal identity anyway, so privacy is less important to me, I'd rather have the most established and secure service. I don't use email for communication so E2E encryption etc is not hugely relevant to me.

The way I see it, you need to differentiate between security and privacy. Gmail is one of the best providers security-wise, but obviously one of the worst ones wrt privacy.

Note that sometimes your account at Google is so secure that even you can't access it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30051054.

Ok but I found that 2FA even was a hoax since IMAP connection could still be established completely outside it. Any idea if you can still IMAP an email even if 2 yubikeys may be required to log in online?

To a degree but it has an upper bound of income. Unless people are going to start taking on mortgages to pay their rent.

I would argue this is the exact opposite of what we want to do.

The primary cause of this problem is the conventional desktop OS which has no meaningful security model.

IOS and Android have the correct approach to mitigate this, strong sandboxing and mandatory access control.

GNU/Linux phones bring these problems to mobile, which considering how much of our lives are on these devices, is an absolute disaster.

Here you go: https://qubes-os.org

So I actually use this as my daily driver, but I think it illustrates the point quite well.

The only way to meaningfully secure a GNU/Linux desktop is to run multiple instances of it through a type-1 hypervisor.

For a mobile device, a user prioritizing privacy, security and FOSS would be much better served by GrapheneOS.

This isn't something you can reasonably protect against and I don't even see this as a purely technical problem.

Even if you could verify Signal, what about the OS being compromised, the phone being lost or a shoulder surfer reading the message?

Even if I tell a friend a secret over dinner I can't 100% verify that they are not going to tell someone else. So some degree of trust in the other party is required.

If you can't trust the person to take the technical steps needed to secure the information, why do you trust them to not just share your secret the old fashioned way?

Got this question at a FAANG company. Interviewer was absolutely not satisfied with linear solution and wanted it solved in log(m + n)

There's a huge meta-game around these questions that you pick up after practicing them enough.

Even without the hint, I intuitively know looking at that question that linear time is too easy for a 1 hour face to face interview at Google.

I also know that as the data is sorted the optimal solution must be logarithmic, as in these contrived problems there's no such thing as an unnecessary detail. Monotonic means binary search.

I haven't built this intuition from my experience as a software developer, but by spending my free time playing the game and grinding these arbitrary puzzles.

The fact you missed this meta, tells me absolutely nothing about your skills as a developer, only that you haven't been grinding leetcode.

That shouldn't be a signal not to hire you, but that's how the game works at FAANG.

If you can make this observation about the arrays, and code a fully functional binary search taking into account whether the total length of both arrays is odd/even, handling the out of bounds case, whilst under pressure on your third interview of the day with just the intuition you've built in your day job, then as far as i'm concerned you are the exception not the rule.