goodplay

I also believe that trading real networks for supposed security would be a very bad move.

Network node security should not be delegated to the network. Not only would this necessitate forgoing very useful features that networks enable, you won't improve node security. Devices that are vulnerable by merely sharing a network with other nodes tend to have other more sever security lapses.

I agree that a button is simple way to switch between modes, but it will also make point-to-point the default. People don't change defaults, and companies will eventually cease to implement network capability as a result.

I'm all for better network security, but not at the expense of discarding the network itself.

Unless your usage includes redistribution, GPL/BSD licensing differences have little effect on end-users.

Also, the definition of one license is "more free" than the other is completely subjective and is wholly dependent on the perspective of the licensee.

If they have physical access, it's over regardless of what authentication mechanisms are employed.

I'd argue that not being able to modify software subjects you to a higher risk because you wont be able to fix security vulnerabilities yourself.

Software and hardware outlive the companies that produce them.

Yup. It's a good thing that we live in a universe where companies and all their employees are completely trust-worthy, and will flat-out refuse to do something illegal if asked (or incentivised) by others.

It's a good thing that all governments act within the confines of the law (both wittingly and otherwise).

It's a good thing that all software we write is correct and sound, and that no bug ever existed nor the desire to exploit such a bug should it have existed.

Paranoid people with their tinfoil hats. Shesh!

Having a domain that can serve https is good and all, but it's no use if the client doesn't actually bother checking whether the cert is valid or not. The phenomenon is so prevalent that google needed to add a warning to developers in android's ssl socket documentation.

Odds are that I'm not from your community, but I follow a personal policy of not visiting plain http websites. I have strict HTTPS enabled at all times, and for the few sites that I visit that exclusively serve insecure content, I visit through archive.org or google cache.

Needless to say, I can't interact with these sites through proxies. It could also be the case that those who care about their security and privacy simply left your community or limited their presence to just being spectators.

I am.

Tyranny of the defaults goes both ways; If you're software doesn't have sane defaults, I will search for another.

I hope this is indicative of plans to revive the rust gcc frontend. The existence of that frontend was a major plus for the language as a stable standard.

Other places aren't much better either. In my country, you don't get to reach the courts. If some official doesn't like you, and you aren't a descendant of a well-known lineage and don't have connections, you will accidentally fall down a couple of flights of stairs, repeatedly.

And should you by some miraculous series of events manage to get your case heard in a court (have $$$ to burn), they'll just appeal the verdict (and win).

There is no escaping this shitfest.

Why not leave it as an user configurable option. I personally think that the new box looks better.

They should partition the papers into fields and sub-fields so that each person could easily host and mirror their field of interest.

This has the additional benefit of having the papers locally for easy indexing and searching.

> Oh no! I need to buy a $5 piece of hardware to run this Java code? What kind of nonsense is that?

Funny. That's Microsoft line of thought with Vista.

They should categorize papers into specific fields (and sub-fields). Each party would torrent what interests them.

Also, this might make a great use case for IPFS as apposed to torrents. Torrents are not designed to be mutable.

I strongly support Cloudflare's stance. If the act of providing hosting to a party is legal, then cloudflare should never intervene. If the act is illegal, then law enforcement and courts should do their job.

I have much more confidence in companies that follow the law than those that arbitrarily pull the rug from underneath me for what they perceive is morally "right". I will not trust cloudflare if it turns into another Github.

Yes but at what cost? If people are fine with this, companies will start forcing people to scan faces for all sorts of reasons. Whether it's to enforce drm or for better targeted advertising ("It seems you're suffering from acne, here's 3 products that may help"), do you really want to live in a world like that?

Is it cryptographicly broken or not? Can I read the plain text of the traffic I capture?

I still don't understand how opening up the codebase would prevent them from being successful.

As the countless messaging apps out there demonstrate, the value of communication apps lies in the network they build. If they provide a decent UX, and successfully bootstrap a network large enough, it wont matter if their code is open.

I keep seeing this accusation get flung around whenever someone mentions telegram but never proof. I remember telegram had a vulnerability once and then it was patched just like any other security software.

You shouldn't throw around accusations without proof.

Come on, it would definitely still be possible with AGPL code. What brought people to whatsapp is its ubiquity and the fact that it just works, and what keeps them from going elsewhere is the inevitable network effect.

Nothing in the AGPL prevents either from occurring.

Imagine where you'd be if mathematicians had a similar thought process as yours. They spend entire lifetimes inventing methods and algorithms to solve complex problems.

I think all these problems arise from the way we pretend that information is property. It is not.

which might include flying across the run way to the coordinates it took off from.

As others have pointed out, the last thing you want is some object flying over the airport that is not under your control.

The rust project also advocates this method of installing software on their download page. To their defense, however, they do offer gpg signatures for their tarballs, even if you need to dig around for a bit to find them.

Also, anyone suggesting that this method of downloading and installing software is secure due to its use of HTTPS is incredibly reckless.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

I've been interested in evaluating Mediatek processors for desktop usage for a while now. I think this tablet offers the best opportunity (and lowest friction) to do this due to who they're target this at: developers and open software folk (unlocked, open software).

Hopefully, this'll turn out a positive experience and more OEMs hop on board.

The same way you'd handle a trojan module in a statically-linked project; you remove the trojen and republish. It's a issue with linking rather than dependency satisfaction.

You're missing the forest for a single tree. The obligation to redistribute changes under the same license is not the only reason to use the GPL. The license's safeguarding of end-users' right to fix and modify GPLed software is a far more important reason, and is the reason why I and many people like me choose the GPL.

I don't want to restrict developers and corps. After all, I am a developer who wants control over my hard work. However, I also don't want to erode the rights of end-users - of whom I also am. I don't want to end up in a situation where I can't fix a bug in my own software because a corporation wont let me.

It's a trade off. I choose end-users.

Couldn't they go the the same route they took with classifying objects in images by using their users to label them? I know recaptcha provides an option to verify yourself by transcribing audio.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"

I'd like to think that in the future when "the open-source bubble" bursts and companies fall back to 70s-era mentality, developers would rediscover why free software is important and a new movement would would be born.

Sadly, I think hardware be permanently locked down by then. Perhaps by FCC-style law.

The only reason I use the GPL is to safeguard the general public's rights to modify and distribute my software. If anything, I'd argue that releasing GPL software works against the author as it makes making money off it substantially more difficult.

I think mentioning these points upfront is a great way to give potential employees some idea about what kind of environment they should expect and whether they will be a good fit or not.

To me, at least, having this kind of information would immensely help me narrow down my list of possible employers.