sesutton

You could audit the Go source and then use the diverse double compiling technique[0] to verify that the binary you're using corresponds to that source code.

[0] http://www.dwheeler.com/trusting-trust/dissertation/html/whe...

Cross compiling Nim is also dead simple. I even managed to compile for an unsupported Unix with very minimal knowledge of Nim.

IANAL either but I think the part about modifications by third parties means that you don't get a license to an additional Facebook patent you might infringe by modifying it.

So if you change React to add some functionality that infringes on a patent Facebook holds you don't automatically get a license to that patent.

I imagine a lot of them were for image thumbnails since reddit actually hosts those.

The rules about encryption and backdoors are authoritarian but hardly unexpected from China.

The rest of it doesn't seem so unusual. Microsoft has been sharing source code with governments for over a decade and several other countries (including Western ones) are considering requiring user data to be kept in country.

Its hard for me to come up with a way in which this is not RMS advocating restricting the freedom of users of GCC.

If he is so opposed to proprietary software using GCC output why not use a license that prohibits that? Its not even too late for new versions since the FSF owns the copyright to all GCC code.

Maybe not through legal means but the one gun store that tried to actually sell a smart gun got death threats.

This is just a variation of the slippery slope argument except this slope doesn't seem very slippery to me. Gun rights have been getting stronger in the US not weaker, courts in recent years have decided that the 2nd amendment is an individual right and that it is incorporated against the states.

I don't see how a libertarian, as many gun advocates but certainly not all, can make a rational argument for preventing a private company from selling smart-guns to individuals.

I think this[0] thread is a pretty good example of a hive mind in action. I disagree with a lot of those comments but I would have had to put a lot more effort to write a dissenting comment than most other commenters just to have a chance of not being downvoted into oblivion. But I can easily imagine lots of one sentence comments I could have made that would have been at worst ignored.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8838721

I don't see how you got to that conclusion from reading the article other than perhaps assuming that in the American context conservative equals far-right. Perhaps its a matter of perspective but while there are plenty of far-right people in the US I don't think it's fair to assume that conservative is synonymous with far-right in the US.

You're right it will only work for one class. This is actually a perfect example of jQuery smoothing out the rough edges for you. I think the split method would work (provided you remember to split with \s instead of just space). It actually took me a while to come up with a regex replace that won't break in some corner cases ( I think)

    document.getElementById('foo').className = document.getElementById('foo').className.replace(/(\s|^)foo(\s|$)/, ' ');

\b is out because it matches - and would kill stuff like foo-bar.

The no commercial license definitely makes it not free (as in speech) software. This definitely killed my interest.

Edit- I also think the license should be noted much more prominently otherwise its going to bite people.

"Torture" isn't just a crime it's also a word that's been around for centuries that is used to describe the kind of things described in the report. People who want to avoid it do so because its a powerful and emotive word. Describing it as "enhanced interrogation techniques" is just a euphemism to make it seem more palatable because everyone agrees "torture" is wrong but who even knows what an "enhanced interrogation technique" is?

Interestingly I logged out of my Google account in Chrome and immediately got an old style CAPTCHA. But not when I logged out in Safari (I very rarely use Safari).

Edit- Nevermind, it looks like Safari left some google.com cookie lying around while Chrome deleted it. Deleting it gave me the old CAPTCHA.

I think you're being a little hyperbolic. Google is classifying what is already normal human behavior. Having JavaScript disabled is definitely not "normal" human behavior. Of the stats I found only 1-2% of users don't get JS and the UK's Government Digital Service found[1] that only 0.2% of users disabled or can't support JS.

I don't think regular CAPTCHAs are going away anytime soon since any bot detection system is bound to have false positives.

[1] https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2013/10/21/how-many-people-are-missi...

The problem is that Google has no incentive to be careful in choosing which links it removes. There is no penalty for removing links unnecessarily but there is the potential for EU member states to levy fines for not removing them.