sharperguy

To me, it's just further evidence that trying to assert ownership over a specific sequence of 1s and 0s is an entirely futile and meaningless endeavor.

> If you are as good as everyone else, why would YOU get paid more?

If every coal miner could suddenly produce 10x the amount of goal, do people say "well now we can just hire one coal miner instead of 10". Or do they say "now thousands of new project which were not economically viable due to the high price of coal are now viable, meaning we actually need to increase our total output beyond even 10x of what it was previously."

This bill would effectively make prusa illegal, which is my main issue with it. I refuse to buy anything else if it is not open in the same way.

Not all stablecoins are intended as investments. For many it's just a way to send money internationally without dealing with the SWIFT system, waiting periods, banks losing payments etc.

I still wonder about that. I don't have a contract with the advertiser to provide genuine data back about what ads I've clicked and what I haven't. The website operator does have such a contract and so cannot hire a bot farm to spam click the ads.

If it's something that's been held up in court already then of course I have to accept it, but I can't say the reason seems immediately intuitive.

Surely making use of a new tool that makes you more productive would increase your value rather than decreasing it? Especially when, knowing the kinds of mistakes AI could make that would affect your codebase negatively in terms of maintainability, security etc would require significant experience.

They know that you likely read some email from HSBC and if you happen to read the same one again they will know it was the same one.

Mesh networks like meshtastic have shown that they can be run on very low power meaning they can continue to route messages with the power from small solar panels. This makes them more useful in disaster or wide scale power outage scenarios than only as an anti-authority measaure.

I'm not sure why we're debating this as if the people had a say in this at all. This was clearly an operation led by Trump and the military, planned for months in secret, and carried out in a single day. There were no debates in congress or the senate. There was no vote to the people.

All we can do is try to figure out what the short, medium and long term conesquences of this might be, and consider how to pressure the government to limit the power of the executive branch to do things like this without oversight in the future.

i remember in the early 2000s browers would refuse to store cookies unless you clicked accept on a dialog for every single one. Until they started making it auto accept by default.

It would be easy enough to add this as a "secret" feature:

* user submits password * gets hashed client side * server compares it against stored hashes * server also re-hashes the stored hash, and compares it against the hash received from the client

This would effectively mean that either entering the password, or the password hash would correctly match, since when entering the hash you are effectively "double" hashing the password which gets compared to the double hashed password on the server.

The upside is that users who don't understand hashing or don't feel like opening a sha256 tool wouldn't have to change their behavior or even be confused by a dialog explaining why they should hash the input, while advanced users could find out about the feature via another channel (e.g. hackernews).

The downside would be that it adds an extra hash step to every comparison on the sever. It's hard to know how expensive this would be for them.

Yes as with many things these days it just makes it easier to integrate with existing systems, like web browsers. So you can have an entire client built into a web page without needing special server software to translate between NOSTRs native connection to a websocket. Plus it makes hosting easier in some cases.

The key thing is that all messages are signed and have a few standard fields, making them easy to replicate across many relays while maintaining the ability to verify their origin. And the second thing being that it is based on websockets, allowing the client to maintain an open connection and have new data be pushed instantly rather than relying on polling.

It's a little different to federated networks like GNU Social/Mastadon since the data and the relay are separate. You can post the same data to multiple relays and read from many relays simultaneously. Meaning you aren't tied to picking a single relay with network effects, and although a big relay going offline might cause temporary chaos, it's fairly easy for new ones to be set up and added to clients, without having to explicitly move things like accounts and so on.

it's commonly used for checking how sites look when not logged in, without logging out, or logging in as another user temporarily.

Or just repeal the laws that are being used to make them non-free.

The existence of fraud, toxicity and misinformation around bitcoin doesn't necessarily mean that bitcoin itself is broken. It's a very poorly understood technology, centering around money that once spent cannot be reversed. It's natural that MANY people would come along and attempt to exploit that gap. Over time though the bag of tricks will start to wear a bit thin, and people will learn what to look for.

Many people in the bitcoin community have been and are still calling out wallets that rely on 3rd party trust, decentralized exchanges that are build on a house of cards, alternative coins that are created purely for the purpose of pump and dump etc.

Meanwhile the core technology progresses and deals with functioning at larger scales, with lower entry and exit friction, improved safety guarantees.

I'm thinking of this as I read this thread. How do you solve the problem of social media firehoses while still allowing kids to have access to the vast wealth of information and advice that the internet provides? It hasn't been so many years since many were predicting that the internet will make schools themselves obsolete.

I see how you could've got that from my comment, but I wasn't trying to imply pure intentions.

Governments have to juggle a lot of different factors in order to maintain order and stay in office. It's natural that they would resort to less than scrupulous methods to attain this.

To go back to the knife example, once they have established preventing the piercing of human flesh as a mandate, it would be easy to extend this to preventing any kind of action using a knife that is inconvenient to them.

I'm struggling to come up with a reasonable sounding example though given the analogy. Perhaps... it gets extended to animals under the guise of protecting animal rights, but also prevents people from butchering their own hunt and animals killed must be submitted to a central processor who takes a large cut and have financial ties to particular politicians. I guess it's a stretch.

My point is just that the natural economics of the situation will cause governments to use all means at their disposal to achieve their end goals, whatever they may be. And so having these devices with their capabilities and our reliance on them is a huge hole in the defenses of freedom advocates just begging to be exploited.

Abolishing copyright and patent law would pretty much solve this.

I completely agree with the sentiment. I think from their perspective, it's just a case of what CAN be done vs what is morally acceptable.

If knives were technologically sophisticated enough that they could be programmed to refuse to pierce particular materials, you know that the government would be forcing manufacturers to include human flesh in that list, and making liable anyone who sells one without that restriction.

This is the first time we've had a device that we rely on for almost all our daily activities, produced by a small handful of businesses that are easy for states to pressure.

Surely selling off office space and turning it back into family appartments would make it feel more "lived in"?

It's likely that without laws such as the DMCA, there would already be easier, legally legitimate ways to circumvent Apples technology preventing interoperability. So as usual the new regulations try to cancel out the problems caused by the previous regulation, while having their own side effects that require future regulation to cancel out, ad infinitum.

I don't use emacs or org mode, so I'm probably way off the mark, but I imagine I'd use git if I were to do something like that?

Considering phone scammers often convince their victims to:

- install remote desktop software

- run commands in the windows terminal

- withdraw cash from the bank

- lie to the bank teller about their purpose

- insert their cash into a bitcoin ATM at a gas station

- ignore warnings about scams which appear on the screen of the ATM

- insert the scammers bitcoin address into the machine

It isn't a stretch to imagine they could convince the victim to install adb and sideload an app.

What incentive is there for OEMs to not add this option though? Does Google refuse to veriy their firmware if they offer this feature?

APKs are already signed. Now Google requries that they be signed by a key which is verified by their own signatures. Which means they can selectively refused to verify whichever keys are inconvenient to them.

This kind of thing is what drives advanced users from debian based distros to things like Arch and Nixos. With niche tools like this that don't have official packages, having a easy way for users to share build scripts, and have them managed by the package manager is a life saver.

Well yes you force them to find other workarounds because their current workaround are no longer relevant. Because no system will ever fit everyones usecase.

A "normal person" is just someone whose time and mental energy are focused on something other than the niche task your app is aiming to solve. With enough time and focus, anyone can figure out any interface. But for many, something which requires a smaller investment to achieve the results they need is preferrable.