The way I understand it is that the spirit of Free Software is _user_ freedom - they are free to use the software in any way they wish without restrictions. SSPL meets this bar no differently than any other license with provisions requiring open sourcing code. Open Source, per the OSI, has a particular point of view, in one clause they feel SSPL fails the test: their interpreted ambiguity of what triggers related code to also require the same license felt like it was too infectious — i.e. it could not live harmoniously in an ecosystem of deployed software because of their fear that mere interactions could be considered a triggering event. The reality is that is not true. Not only does the license very clearly outline the condition (basically it eliminates the proxy loophole AWS has historically used), the creators of the license also created an accompanying FAQ providing further clarifications of intent. I find the strong emotional reaction people get when someone asks why SSPL doesn’t count is quite odd. I find the fact that literally nobody (besides the OSI in extremely weak argumentation that the license self-clarifies on, the authors repeatedly clarified on, and the accompanying FAQ removes all doubt) can provide a coherent argument in opposition even more strange. If I want to provide an equally vitriolic remark, I think the reality of why OSI rejected it, and why some people feel so strongly opposed, is ironically the same suspicions they casted on the genesis of the license (MongoDB has a business interest in this license): look at the members of the OSI — there are a number of IaaS people, who of course would be opposed to recognizing a license that stops their grift.
I’m not really buying the notion that SSPL isn’t open source, and the more I read the discourse around free software and the intentions thereof (_user_ freedom), I fail to see how it doesn’t count. I know a lot of folks love to quip that the OSI won’t accept SSPL, but they don’t get to control the use of the term since it was never theirs to begin with, and the source is absolutely open and available. The stipulation is that you can’t pull an Amazon where you get to play “I’m not touching you” games with the software by wrapping the service with value adds via proxy to escape having to contribute back. That feels in line with the intentions that classical distributed software like GPL intended, for that the emergence of SaaS enabled barn-door-wide loopholes.
Speaking from the other side of that perspective — being one of a few women in a CS program can be a very uncomfortable experience, especially a decade or two ago.
Your traffic is certainly going over more than six links to get to you today, the only difference is clearnet traffic direction is organized for efficiency. TOR has inefficiency baked into the design for the purpose of privacy.
There’s some folks who will run their sentences through google translate and back between languages with poor translation coverage to strip identifying writing styles.
This article essentially could be shortened to a single sentence: the simpler, safer algorithms that SRP was invented as a work around due to patent encumbrance are no longer needed as the patents for SPAKE have expired.
Yeah it’s always annoyingly jarring when people assume that. You can even see in the comments on this topic that people attack the suggestion of gender neutral language, which further compounds on the feeling like we don’t belong or are explicitly unwanted.
Something tells me there’s hardware engineers on the AR/VR team at Apple chuckling at news stories like these reading filings like tea leaves and not remotely getting close to predicting what Apple plans to do.
Admittedly, I’ve had a very unusual experience on Tinder. Attraction is important, but it’s not the be all end all for me, as there are way more important things. That being said, I also know I rank pretty high on their scoring mechanics, based on the characteristics of who they show to me, and how I am shown to others (for example, Tinder primes people to swipe right by showing a high scoring user when you first open the app, many close friends have informed me “Tinder keeps showing me you when I open the app”, but there are other considerations you can use to assess your internal score). So I match with interesting choices on other attributes. And of the crowd I match with I have built a workflow to manage the volume (literally, I have over three thousand matches as of writing this, historically a total of over 7,000 in the year and a half I’ve used the app) — I reverse engineered their API so I could pull the matches and messages and create JIRA tickets automatically so I could bucket conversations based on initial intentions. It sounds pretty horrible once I write that out, but on the other hand I feel it’s pretty horrible that people don’t get a fair shake because of the way this game is rigged, and this ensures better “fairness”, at least in some way. Also not to mention, about half don’t message first, and of those that do, about a fifth of the time they’re pretty unsavory openers.
For starters, the pool of people on say, Tinder, for example, is already disproportionately imbalanced in terms of represented populations (as I said, 10:1). Assuming an even distribution of “attractiveness” (which obviously isn’t straightforward to quantify and varies by locale), there’s already a huge discrepancy: even a woman of average attractiveness (of ten women 1-10, she ranks a 5) has fifty (given ten women, there are a hundred men in total) that rank below, in terms of attractiveness. When you have a limited number of right swipes a day, well below the number of available options that _do_ qualify, and nearly every right swipe is a match, it leads to a conditioned behavior of selecting well above one’s “rank”. Of course, online dating apps have no interest in removing the barriers that result in this condition — it makes men pay more for more swipes, higher priority in the stacks shown to women, and the option to see who swiped on them. In other words, it’s a rigged game.
Being on the other side of that though is: join app, wade through many low quality matches because the ratio is like 10:1, become extremely choosy because every right swipe is a match. It produces really bad psychological effects for both cohorts.
> He says the swipe-right or swipe-left nature of many of the apps means people are judging a person based on very little, a photo and a short bio.
Sounds like he’s using the wrong apps for his goal. It’s intuitively determined that the gradient of intentions for dating apps goes from being hookup-oriented to long term compatibility in direct proportion to the amount of info given before matching.
Financial anonymity is important — just because the panic of the day is “secret Nazis” doesn’t make this untrue. Consider a woman trying to escape domestic abuse, who has been financially trapped. If all transactions are untraceable, a $20 to “a grocery store” here and there can very well be her escape route. Same goes for oppressed individuals attempting to escape abusive families, neighborhoods, countries. Realistically the people you’re most worried about have used what they’ve always used to conduct their transactions anonymously: cash.
Because computer science is not an engineering degree, and (at least in the states) professional engineers are required at a minimum to hold a four year degree in an accredited engineering program, work under a certified engineer for a period of time, take an exam, etc. While this is for literal physical engineering, there is not an appropriate parallel for software engineering. There are people who hold doctorates in computer science that cannot build functioning software. And it’s not expected that they can — CS is not an engineering degree. If mathematicians were commonly employed like software engineers, they may find themselves adopting a Mathematic Engineer, but that doesn’t mean it bears any relationship to an engineering degree, let alone any degree.
Correct — I suspended development on the repository a few weeks ago to switch from launching centralized and federated initially to going fully decentralized at the start of the public beta. I’m taking the time to work on an extension to double ratchet to extend to group conversations but avoid a painful group ECDH key rotation scheme or take on integrity compromises like with megolm.
Also working on a Discord alternative, albeit my project is a decentralized version — neat to see the space has traction. One thing I couldn’t quickly surmise: it looks like your services are centralized and neither servers/spaces (whatever terminology you’re using for logical groupings of communities) nor DMs have support for encryption. Do you have plans to support this? I don’t mean to ask this as a FUD spreader, I just am curious how you differentiate from Discord aside from being open source, and similarly, how you intend to ensure your offering stays open source in perpetuity?
> And I think we did things that most programmers would be able to do:
> Get a base line for how fast we can zcat a file
> Use perf top to find some bottlenecks that can be addressed
> Look at the data to understand what the common case is
These are reasonable statements to make for people writing software in low level languages. They will frequently use those tools and make those considerations. The original code the author is referring to was written in Python by a person who specializes in data science, using mostly Python (according to their CV). The subsequent port into Rust was done because of claims of it being faster, but I wouldn’t necessarily expect someone primarily working in Python and performing a one-off port into a language they don’t regularly work in, specialized for a space they don’t regularly work in (systems programming) to know these things. It’s always cool to see performance and code length golfing exercises, but the argument that “most programmers would be able to do” the intuited evaluative scoping steps isn’t necessarily fair — not all programmers are working at lower levels of abstraction that warrant being necessarily aware of those tools.
The irony whenever someone references this article is they always seem to forget that he was arguing against the decision to rewrite Netscape, specifically, to create version 6, also known as Mozilla.
I think you’re overestimating most people’s ability to withstand the stress that quiz show style Leetcode interviews can put on people. I’ve literally blanked on an interview before when I was tasked with writing a simple parser and I’ve written entire compilers. The interview processes are broken in most companies. Pair programming sessions with debugging and incremental graduation of the problem scope are way better at assessing programming competency, because you also get a sense for how well the candidate can collaborate and communicate.
Not quite, there are far more aggressive licenses on repositories on GitHub, such as SSPL, which in theory by providing the SSPL licensed code, Co-Pilot should be open sourced under the same license to comply.
Why would a company in the US (Signal) decide to comply with the doctrine of another country, especially a doctrine antithetical to their entire business?
Those sound like good things to you — some people prefer a world where they are free to do as they wish with the property they own, so long as it doesn’t cause a problem for neighbors (I.E. basic maintenance to avoid pests, overgrowth, etc.). I have the opposite take on the neighborhood you described: uniformity is boring, uninspiring, and depressing.
This is a dangerous feature for git repository hosts like GitHub to support. It makes it all too easy for subtle vulnerabilities to be introduced and omitted from visible blame history, with reviewers presuming trust based on historic content. Example: codebase went through an audit, was approved, then someone sneaks in some subtle changes to some files under the guise of a bulk change, adds the commit to the ignore list, continues making more commits to other files. Pulling a report to see historic changes could result in the file made vulnerable being skipped because it appeared to occur before the last audit. Hard pass.