177 karma · joined April 21, 2020
This just isn't enforceable. Yet more laws made by people that don't understand the technology.
Not like they could get information from OP, and then make a FOIA request of the two departments OP mentioned to identify similar reports and write the facts up in an article for us to read, understand and decide for ourselves if it's an issue. That's good journalism: give the facts and let the public make opinions, not the current system which gives the opinions and let the public make up the facts. Just like this post, deciding it's a wide spread issue and the comments agreeing it is without any evidence.
You could absolutely design a new string container that assumes left to right at all times and cannot be changed, but then it's on the programmer to ensure that strings are copied or concatenated in the right direction, at the right location, and substrings searching becomes a minor headache. How would you concatenate an RTL string to a forced LTR string representation? You would have to work out whether the end of the string it LTR or RTL. If LTR, append directly. If RTL find the character where the direction changes and insert the string in there - much more expensive. Better to just append the string, using bidi codes where required, and let the frontend process the string to make the appropriate direction changes. Yes, you may need to search the string for the bidi code to know which direction you're going at the end of the string, but that's just a simple reverse string search for a single control character, and not a complex variable multi-byte search of inferred character directions by codepoint values.
I think the issue is in the locations of which bidi codes are rendered. They provide an inherent untrustworthy-ness to the text area they're rendered in, and so should be treated as an exception in critical situations. I've seen the reversed exe file name trick used for years, and every time I ask myself why that's even a thing? If the OS used file headers and magic numbers to determine file types instead of the filename, it would be less of an issue.
For source code, I would question the rendering of RTL text in a source code editor as it's an obvious issue for code safety. Ideally, all source code would be kept to the same origin language - doesn't have to be english, just consistent. Any non-conforming text should ideally be loaded from a resource rather than inline within the source code, to avoid foreign character contamination and allow easier identification of these issues. Further, source code rendering should only render identified safe control codes, and treat unsafe ones as raw binary values to be shown as such - i.e. \r and \n are safe, \b is unsafe, and bidi codes would also be unsafe. You could even go so far as to include them in the syntax highlighting, but that results in a dependency on syntax highlighting to show the semantics of the source code rather than the text alone.
I am interested in a deliveroo/just-eat style grocery shopping solution though. If the store can pick and pack your order in 3 hours and put it at the front of the store for collection by a group of drivers that are constantly in rotation, how is that any different from collecting my takeaway and driving it to my house? It really isn't, but it's also not an urgent operation that needs such a quick turn around time IMO. I'm sure others will pay for the convenience, but I'm personally happy waiting 12 hours and collecting it myself so long as I don't have to step inside the store.
I didn't use it until the pandemic kicked off, and then I only started using it as a way to avoid the long queues outside supermarkets. And it was a revelation. I can now select everything I want to buy over the course of a few hours to a few days, and then go and collect at the time I picked. I rarely forget anything, as I can just add it to the order as I remember it. And from arrival to departure is normally no more than 10 minutes, can be ridiculously short if you pick the right timeslot, or can be up to 30 minutes if busy - that's still faster than parking, going into the store, wandering around, forgetting things, checking out and loading the car.
The downside to it is if an item isn't available, you may get some weird replacements or just don't get the item at all. But that's not entirely different to if you went inside anyway.
In all seriousness, if Amazon can get a delivery across the country and out for delivery within 6 hours, supermarkets should be able to select your order, pack it and make it available to collect from the store in less time.
But also, why do you care so much about what other people do with their time? Live and let live, my friend. Nobody is forcing you to write ansible playbooks, build your own homelab, or comment on posts you view as a waste of everybody's time.
The technology has plenty of applications in CGI and trying to push through the uncanny valley. By no means am I claiming that a tool designed to generate sexually explicit material without consent is an appropriate use. But the fact is, technology is used and abused every day without having such huge sanctions put on it. What makes this any different? the fact it's new.
But it's not a new trend by any means. 20 years ago, 'x-raying' was a thing. Photoshop someone to look like their clothes are transparent. Or the bubbles effect, using circles cut out of a mask layer to hide clothing to make the image look like a nude without showing anything explicit.
The fact is outlawing technology just means something new will turn up to replace the old. Whereas making the end product illegal to possess and/or distribute gives a far more beneficial power to law enforcement and the legal system. "I'm sorry officer, these were generated using a different tool, so they're actually legal" or "you can't prove what tool was used to create them" would be perfectly viable defences if the tool is outlawed, vs the act itself.
so we should outlaw any piece of technology that can be misused?
This is what happens when technologically inept people make laws to regulate technology. By this standard, cameras should be outlawed in case they're used to take sexually explicit pictures without consent. Computers should be outlawed in case they're used to distribute anything illicit.
Outlawing the production (by any means) and/or distribution (by any means) of non-consensual, sexually explicit material should be enough. If someone can show evidence that someone has produced to shared such content, then that's enough to demonstrate the offence.
No need to go stopping the rest of us from using technology just because some disgusting excuse for a human decided to demonstrate some of the worst of humanity with said technology.
20 years to go from a pile of cash and no experience, to a full production line of safe orbit-capable launch vehicles is a very big ask. SpaceX has achieved that, but at the cost of many of its employees (just look at the press around SpaceX working conditions).
Yes, it's longer than the time between the Mercury missions and Apollo 11, but the 50s-60s era of space travel was significantly higher risk. If corners could be cut in the same way, no doubt 20 years would have been fairly reasonable. Add in an existing presence in space R&D and the shorter time frames of the space shuttle program seem even more reasonable. But that just isn't possible in today's safety first world.
I would hope GitHub (and Microsoft) did the legal work to cover this, and not just ploughed ahead with the plan to drown any legal challenges. From my perspective, they're doing the latter.
you can't go copying anything and everything just because nobody has told you that you can't. and I feel that's part of the purpose behind GPL. force a license on derivative code so that at least there's clear rights moving forwards.
I think my point still stands.
But yes, in an ideal world it wouldn't work this way. who watches the watchmen? If FINRA isn't regulated, then they can do what they like.
What is keeping FINRA's interest in following up with punishments of members?
It's the psychology of "well, it's already sharing some data. what's the harm in a little more?" There will always be people that want minimal data sharing, and I'm one of them, but the vocal minority are exactly that - the minority. The majority of users don't actually care, which is why the data harvesting industry is as big as it is - plenty of data out there to harvest.
I agree though. Bitcoin isn't the only crypto coin worth talking about.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/top-10-cryptocurren...
Audacity, however, doesn't. It's a standalone application. It works on local files. It has worked perfectly fine like this for decades. And now a new owner has come in and changed that within weeks. That's not okay.
The same complaints are being made about other software doing similar. For example, Microsoft's attempt to make all Windows accounts online. We've had 30+ years of Windows without online accounts. Why should that change? and most importantly, why must it be forced upon unsuspecting users?
I do agree with you, though, that anybody can call it anything they want, and that doesn't make it true. But it's also fair to be suspicious of unnecessary changes that, on their own may seem innocuous, but together lead to something far worse.
Humans are outdoor animals. Yes. Well done. A+. We even have opposable thumbs, which means we can operate door handles and make our own way outside. Or are you asking us to demolish our houses and live out in the farmland now?
We build homes for warmth and security. Even our nomadic ancestors built movable homes (tents, teepees, caravans, mobile homes, RVs etc.). Just because an animal is supposed to be outside, doesn't mean it has no benefit from access to an indoor area. The rules for survival fit animals just as much; 3 minutes without air, 3 hours without shelter, 3 days without water, 3 weeks without food. The numbers will be different, but if an animal cannot find shelter on a cold night, it's unlikely to survive (unless specifically adapted for that situation).
Countries that have had domestic and wild cats for millennia are mostly unaffected by domestic cats being outside, especially in urban areas where wildlife is overrun by vermin.
Yes, there are plenty of examples of cats causing issues, but only in locations where they were introduced and not where they are native. Australia is a good example, as domesticated cats have become a nuisance and bred in the wild. But then you look at what has happened since the cat population was culled, with the many videos of mice on farms. Removing them isn't a perfect solution, as they've been around long enough to become a part of the ecosystem and not just a destructive force.
I would also qualify this with; cats should be kept inside whilst in heat. Many of the issues caused by cats are due to owners letting their cats reproduce. Where cats have a good supply of food, naturally they will reproduce up to a balancing point with the available food. Many cat owners are unaware (or just don't care) about cats reproducing and the impact that has. Spaying/neutering is also a viable option if owners don't want to have to lock their cats in during their heat cycle - cats birthing can be traumatic for the mother, so this can be a major benefit. Similarly, male cats will mate with multiple females so neutering is many times more effective than spaying alone.
I completely understand the want and need to protect your property from intruders, animal or human. But calling for the death of any and all animals that enter your property is borderline psychopathic IMO.
There are humane ways to deter animals from entering your property. Something as simple as spraying a cat with water will deter it effectively - no need to murder it. Other options include putting down plastic spikes (that don't cause injury) on garden fences, growing certain plants which cats dislike the smell of, or even sprays that cats dislike.
And for future reference; if your neighbours cats are pooping in your garden beds, keep the surface of the soil moist. Cats (generally) won't dig in wet soil, and will instead find somewhere else to go. And your plants will appreciate the extra water.
Th obvious suggestion is that if there was equal amounts of antimatter near us, we would likely be annihilated already. But that doesn't explain why so little can be found remotely either.
The potential for matter and antimatter to alternate is an interesting proposal that could explain our little island of stability in the universe.
Or it could be something else entirely. I'm a software engineer, not a physicist.
edit: to head off the downvote brigade, I'm not advocating for this. Only pointing out that "banning" doesn't necessarily mean outlawing its use, but can also include making it unfavourable to use.