lone_haxx0r

What else can we call it?

The only alternative names that come to my mind are the "inductive inconsequential postmodernists" and the "emotional radical progressives"

> He's an extremist. He's a purist. He indeed doesn't get the nuances of interpersonal communication.

When people say "getting the nuances of interpersonal communication", they usually mean "Not telling the truth when it may hurt other people's feelings or your own reputation".

It's perfectly reasonable to not not tell the truth —and even lie— in those cases, but I would prefer if you stated this idea like it is.

"Getting the nuances of interpersonal communication" is saying it like one doesn't understand that people don't act rationally and will throw logic completely out of the window when one of their religious ideas gets questioned.

Stallman is not an idiot, he knows he will get shit for saying what he says, he perfectly gets the "nuances" (i.e. irrational behaviour) of personal communication. He just doesn't care about them.

And there's nothing wrong with prostitution per se.

Github search is not much better.

I've resorted to using google search and append site:github.com to my query.

"What you can't say" by Paul Graham is eerily relevant today

http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

> Perhaps the "issue at hand" can be as simple as software for you.

Ok. You're actually right. I regret saying that software is the only important thing.

Honestly, I guess that part of my comment was a post-rationalization, but what actually bothers me is the hypocrisy of the media and society in general, because they don't apply the same rigor when an institution or person does or says much more despicable when they like those things. But that has nothing to do with this specific issue.

>the chinstroking "most plausible scenario" is pedophile apologia.

Nope, it isn't. Many of his comments actually are, but if you analyze the "most plausible scenario" quote, it has nothing to do with it.

On the same tabloid that blatantly lies on the headline of another article about the same issue?

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci...

No one is asking you to support his statement. No one agrees with someone else on every issue. I don't agree with him either.

The important thing is to agree on the issue at hand: software.

And the "worst name" prize goes to ...

And some people don't believe me when I tell them that 1984 is a reality in some parts of the world.

To paraphrase a comment that I read on Hacker News: "I don't care. If there comes another piece of shit language that makes me money, I'll use it"

> todo app directly against POSIX abstraction

So, a text editor?

Don't shoot the messenger.

Yes, though that's probably illegal on the donor's side, but I see no problem with MIT receiving it.

In such a fucked up world, how do people even manage to focus on the silliest, most irrelevant issues?

> Charitable contributions can make a sleazeball look like a boy scout

Well, that's not the sleazeball's or the charity's problem. If you and other people don't think he's a "boy scout" then he won't be seen as one. If you do, he will.

"Forced" by human nature (hunger, cold, etc), but not forced by other people.

I'm a right-wing libertarian, and I've never felt excluded or anything like that because of his leftist views. This for many reasons:

1) He's not a hypocrite in any way. He's honest and you can tell that he has truly thought about his opinions.

2) In my country, I get bombarded with a ralentless stream of leftist ideology. The worst kind of leftism: the lazy 'slogan' leftism, from people too stupid to realize the full implications of their discourse. In comparison to them, Stallman is a moderate, thoughtful, sweet person.

3) I see his leftism as orthogonal to his software freedom ideology. I use and support free software, and I'm more pro-capitalism than Milton Friedman.

Do you realize that a real "right to be forgotten" would mean forcibly deleting content from other people's memory?

So, if such a right existed, people would have to get killed, or at least being hit strong enough in the head so that they forget the holder of the right.

There are few ideas more totalitarian than a right to control someone else's memory.

<Your consideration here or above>

I guess that as more languages are added to a project, it gets harder and harder to understand and develop. You need to spend time learning yet another tool to be comfortable with inspecting the code and understanding the inner workings of it.

There is a legal/political artifact in this case: Intellectual property.

If IP didn't exist, then this wouldn't be good news, because we would have always had a competitive market in the first place, we wouldn't have proprietary ISAs.

This trade war just happens to interact with that artifact in a positive way: fostering competition in spite of IP.

I'm talking about the general case.

Maybe in this specific case the telecom data was correct, but can you assure the same for every datum ever provided?

Trusting telecom data is essentially the same as trusting an eyewitness.

The eyewitness says the truth sometimes, but you can't trust them as an infallible source of truth.

The telecom company is the third party.

Yes, I'm suggesting to not use data from telecom companies, unless they have a way to prove that said data is real.

> “We cannot live with incorrect information sending people to prison.”

Don't trust data given by third parties then.

This also occurred:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)

If I want to talk to the tyrannical government using their CA, I can't do it using Chrome or Firefox.

Look, I'm as pro-freedom as they come and I'm against coercing people to install certificates, but I also think good tools don't leverage their popularity to push their political opinions, even if I agree with those opinions. Good tools allow their user to do whatever is technically possible, even if the tool maker doesn't like that use-case.

The political and personal relationships of the user fall outside the realm of concern of the tool.

I don't, but maybe other people do.

I want the browser to let me make my own decisions regarding who I share my encrypted data with.

Maybe for some it was a choice. Anyway, it's not the web browser's business.

If my anyone is coercing me to do something, it's a problem between that person and me. I don't want Mozilla lecturing me on politics, I just want to use the browser.

> Mozilla doesn't think the state should meddle in your relationship with them, or the rest of the Internet.

I don't want to have a relationship with Mozilla. I use their browser to communicate with other people. The browser is merely a tool, and I would expect it to allow me to communicate with anyone I want (as long as it's technically feasible), not only people that Mozilla approves of.

From the "Mozilla" link:

> To protect our users, Firefox, together with Chrome, will block the use of the Kazakhstan root CA certificate. This means that it will not be trusted by Firefox even if the user has installed it.

I don't like this (to be honest, I don't like the whole "certificate authority" thing to begin with).

I don't think my browser should meddle in my relationship with the state.

Why don't they also block every CA residing in the US? The US government coerces companies into giving away private data. How do we known that they don't share their private keys with the US government? Will Mozilla & Google take the blame when this happens? because they've declared themselves the guardians of certificate trust.

What if I legitimately need to install this certificate?