PyroLagus

I'd much rather see Firefox use miTLS[0]. They already use HACL[1] (miTLS and HACL are part of Project Everest[2]) in NSS[3], so I don't think it would be too big of a leap. Rust is really cool, but if you want to ensure that the implementation adheres to the spec, a language with formal verification is much better. That said, miTLS isn't finished yet, so of course it's going to take a while until anyone can actually use it.

[0] https://mitls.org/

[1] https://github.com/project-everest/hacl-star

[2] https://project-everest.github.io/

[3] https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2017/09/13/verified-crypto...

Can't you just initialize everything at once before you need it rather than initializing one object here and there?

If you're used to SketchUp, you might be interested in this.[0] I don't think it'll land in 2.8, but I'm sure it'll end up in the nightlies.

[0] https://twitter.com/pablodp606/status/1148242297638858752

Well, they're thinking of overhauling the core.[0] Pablo Vazquez also made a video on why he thinks it shouldn't be 3.0 yet.[1]

[0] https://code.blender.org/2013/06/blender-roadmap-2-7-2-8-and...

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJE7vMmOYZ4

There's the BQ Cervantes, which runs FOSS software, but Kobo's open source community seems much more active.

https://github.com/bq/cervantes

https://blog.bq.com/es/bq-ereaders-developers-program/

Well, epub is just special HTML. I don't think you strictly need JavaScript, but it's about the easiest way to work with and render HTML. And I imagine rendering PDF is a whole lot messier.

Well, technically (and as I'm sure you already know) pull requests are email-based[1] (they are used for Linux kernel development after all), so SourceHut already "supports" it. It could make sense to leverage that in the web UI. User A, who prefers email, emails the output of git request-pull to the mailing list, while user B, who prefers web, presses some button that does that for them. Doing the actual pull would work similarly. It also shares the advantages you listed, although an emailed patch stays in your mailbox backups forever, whereas a pull request URL could become invalid. That said, I'm sure it's easy to underestimate the effort it takes to build a nice pull request UI.

It definitely would make SourceHut more attractive for many people, but so would a nice Git plugin for VS Code that provides a nice UI for automating the git send-email process.

[1] https://git-scm.com/docs/git-request-pull

> How will they be taught now?

Most likely how they've always been taught. For most people, it's enough to know that a kilogram equates to roughly a liter of water (H2O). It's not like the Ampere was ever actually equivalent to "two infinite wires 1m apart creating a certain force" either, since that's not a scenario repeatable in the real world. Teaching science involves lots and lots of simplification. Just like you learn that electrons don't really orbit around the nucleus when studying science in academia, you'll learn the proper definition of the kilogram.

OpenNIC is still going strong and has alternative TLDs. Of course, the problem is that most people won't be able to resolve your domain.

> Though it is fun to rag on C++ every now and again, I believe Google's C++ style guide is a subset of features (classes, no exceptions, subset of boost,..).

Which is the same thing Genode does[1], and it has served them well. Maybe a different language like ADA/SPARK or something else would have been better, but C++ was what they're familiar with, so they made it work. Although I like Rust, it's a bad argument here. Rust has been changing a lot and is still changing, and Fuchsia wasn't started yesterday. And with C++, you could even replace critical parts with formally verified LEAN[1], which has C++ code generation and should be even safer than Rust.

[0] https://genodians.org/nfeske/2019-01-22-conscious-c++

[1] https://leanprover.github.io/

With food and water, pretty long I'd say. Whether they'd stay sane is a different matter.

I suppose this is quite relevant here: https://words.steveklabnik.com/the-culture-war-at-the-heart-...

> However this also allows authors to reserve rights for commercializing their work later on and it's an absolutely fair arrangement.

They could've also used AGPL for that. A popular option.

The license says, "For purposes of this license, commercial purposes is the incorporation of the Allen Institute's software into anything for which you will charge fees or other compensation." Does that include ads? It certainly seems to include donations. And I suppose requiring attribution could be seen as "other compensation". It's kinda broad, but even if it was strictly "don't sell this standalone", it still wouldn't be FOSS or open source imo. It's fine for studying the code, but it's not any better than "source available" software, such as UE4. And if do study the code, you'll have the same legal landmines to deal with as when studying "source available" code. I'd even say that UE4's license is better, because at least it doesn't cause confusion over whether it's open source.

> No reason to denigrate their work because of that.

I don't think anyone did. They just said it's not open source, which seems like a fair assessment to me. Saying that Windows isn't open source doesn't denigrate Microsoft's work either. Open source doesn't mean good, and proprietary doesn't mean bad. This volume-viewer just isn't open source, regardless of its quality.

As an alternative to manual scraping, you can use CommonCrawl[0] or other open data sets, such as those provided by AWS[1]. That should alleviate any legal concerns (I think. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure CommonCrawl and Amazon have lawyers), and it's considerably faster than scraping. On top of that, you don't end up placing an unnecessary load on random websites.

[0] https://commoncrawl.org/

[1] https://registry.opendata.aws/

> Ex: SQL is less efficient than C++ which is less efficient than assembly. A zero abstraction code base is the usually the most efficient implementation and it will be written in assembly.

I don't think we can compare SQL and C++ like that. Not at all.

I'm not sure if the creators will read this, but on https://every-layout.dev/rudiments/axioms/

> At the time of conceiving the axiom, you make not have pictured this specific visual effect.

I'm pretty sure it should be "may" instead of "make".

What I'd like is a search history graph with full-text searchable snapshots for each entry. I don't think I'd even need tabs anymore.

I imagine it would be possible to get Genode running on the Librem 5, which would be even more secure than Android. Only you'd be limited in what applications you can run.

Still, even on Linux, you can set up SELinux or Apparmor to harden your system as much as possible, run untrusted applications as a different user, compile your own hardened kernel, and so on. It's going to be a less secure system for casual users, but it'll allow power-users to more easily (you can do that on Android as well, but it's more difficult) secure their system as much as they want.

Except you don't get nice per-file history, which may not be important to you, but if it is, then using git is certainly not "the worst possible way of versioning your home besides, possibly, making a zip of your whole home directory every time you would otherwise to a commit". Filesystem snapshotting also makes it more complicated to sync your dotfiles with machines that have other filesystems.

> Someone makes a virus for targeted killing of cancer cells. Can they patent it? Are viruses organisms?

This raises the question whether advances in medicine should be able to be patented. With jacked up insulin prices causing people to risk their lives rationing doses, I'm not sure it's a good thing. I know patents create an investment incentive, but I have to wonder if there's not a better way. And government subsidized research adds another layer of complexity, although I'm not sure if that can or can't be patented in various jurisdictions.

Also, many people here are opposed to software patents (imo rightfully so), so it should be unsurprising that they'd be against patenting crops.

> "Why Cryptocurrency?"

Because it's cool and everyone is doing it.

I don't think electric cars break down after two years. Maybe the battery may give problems after a while, but that should be replaceable.

Not all fp languages are purely functional, and certainly not all lisps. In fact, the only lisp that I'm aware of that focuses on immutability is clojure. Granted, many lisp programmers may decide to keep their functions pure, but it's rarely enforced.

> I've seen many proposed implementations but they all fail because if I can prove my vote to myself in any way, someone else can make me prove it to them either to buy or coerce my ballot.

There is a way to prove that your vote was counted without being able to prove what you voted for by using homomorphic encryption. So, if someone wanted to coerce you or pay you for voting at all for whomever you want, they could do it, but that's fine. Microsoft is actually working with Galois on a system operating on this principle[1], and here's a good video explaining the basic concepts of how it works[2].

[1] https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2019/05/06/protect...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYRTvoZ3Rho

It seems that Ada just relatively recently entered their field of vision.

Oh, I'm aware that you can toggle it via sysctl, but it's still not on by default. That said, I can't find any user namespace CVE from 2019, only 2018, so maybe it's safe enough now. I guess "safe enough" is the keyword. If you really worry about the kernel's attack surface, you'll use a separation kernel, VMs, or separate machines altogether.

Apparently even user namespaces can't be trusted for secure isolation, so much so that Arch Linux even has them disabled by default[1]. That said, it's possible that security improved since then, and I don't know when the most recent user namespace vulnerability was found.

[1] https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2017-Febr...

Well, there's jq, which is perfect for that job, but unfortunately it's not a standard utility, and I'm not sure it ever will be, because we have to stick only with stuff invented in the 90's.

I definitely understand the sentiment of "don't build your own" when it comes to cryptography, but do people get mocked for not using Docker and instead using a traditional containerless setup? (Well, I guess people get mocked for anything.) Of course you shouldn't reinvent Docker; if you really need containers, use what's there (whether that's Docker or something else) and try to learn how it works, but I think there's more choices than just "use docker containers" or "build your own containers".

They were primarily responsible for the spread of the Black Death/Great Plague, one of the worst pandemics in human history, so yes. And I'd like to point out that the plague still exists[1]. Now imagine what could happen if we just gave rats free rein... I'm all for animal rights and sympathy, but harmful pests need to be suppressed or eradicated in the areas where they can do harm, whether that's rats, mosquitoes, or locusts.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/plague/maps/index.html

I'm not saying it's a replacement for either F# or OCaml, and I've only glanced at it, but F*[1] looks pretty neat. It's higher-level than F# (a lot) and has a syntax more similar to Haskell's. You can even extract programs in F# and OCaml.

[1] https://www.fstar-lang.org/