> what in the world are you talking about
rebuking the implicit, "ergo this method is bad" part of your post, given its context. more specifically, the idea that its worse than current methods with DNS and X.509
32 karma · joined September 18, 2021
rebuking the implicit, "ergo this method is bad" part of your post, given its context. more specifically, the idea that its worse than current methods with DNS and X.509
This reminds me of HN. You get banned if you say a bad word. You get banned eventually no matter what unless you're a white collar self censored silicon valley drone with ultra-safe opinions like "the C language should be deprecated after a mere 70 years". You get rate limited if you get too many downvotes in the given time slot. Random IPs are blocked for no reason and the login screen is just a blank page. You get shadowbanned so you don't even know you're banned. All for basically nothing, as HN is basically like 2000s forums but with slightly better discourse and consistency of moderation (and worse in other ways).
This idea that we should have some sort of epidemiologically correct moderation policy on the internet is also bullshit. Moderation on the internet started off as, annoying, childish, 40 year old sysadmins who ban anyone they don't like, SJWs who ban anyone who is "the enemy", right wing equivalent of SJWs who do the same thing, rule fetishists (people in the UK who think insulting the queen or showing the middle finger should be illegal), etc. The idea started off with these selfish / idiotic reasons. Once questioned, they are forced into a corner where they can only rationalize moderation as an epidemiological tool. "Yeah, if we just delete these 1 million posts it's a net gain".
The only reason lack of moderation on big copmany's websites even come up is because they're big companies and they have egg on their face for any slight mishap (or what public perceives as a mishap). It's the most stupid fucking shit.
> blah blah blah there are insane people in my country who will kill people based on tweets
This is a problem of people and not Twitter. Those are in the west too and growing especially in America. The problem is dumbed down people who believe stuff on the internet. And idiots who react to things, like a white/black shooting a black/white. There is a solution to this: going to jail for murder. Even boomers in the 90s knew not to believe anything online. Twitter has about a million problems with it and lack of moderation certainly is not one of them.
You cannot reasonably ask Twitter to moderate for your locale's social and violent reactionary issues. That implies they need to hire a huge amount of people for every locale in every country and just gives Twitter more monopoly as another company would have to invest a billion dollars to do that before they can even get off the ground. You have just created this idea that storing 100 bytes of text on a server is now a thing that requires billions of dollars of up front investment to do. This is another issue: People are fucking stupid and expect companies to have some "responsibility" now (despite the fact that product quality is at an all time low and they somehow have no issue with that). This is also just conceding that companies are some kind of god (they really aren't. Twitter is a dog shit website that can't go more than one second without showing the text "undefined" in an important field on the page).
Ironically, the people who demand so called justice by moderating more and more shit online (Unreal Engine now has voice analytics to report you to the police or whatever the fuck built right in), are just as bad as the people who foster misinformation against people. We are heading into an era of micro justice which just means the amount of malpolicing will grow in proportion. The end result of constantly trying to solve micro injustices is AI making sure humans don't do anything "bad" and you will literally be unable to involuntarily move your arm a certain way without being punished. There is not even a philosophically correct definition of justice in law. It's literally a bunch of dudes amending a global ruleset to solve the latest problem, based on wildly varying rationales from people each with entirely different value systems.
It's actually hilarious how short sighted and oblivious statements like "it should be illegal to post misinformation online" are. You aren't a mature responsible adult or whatever you think you are. You are just reacting to something in the most straight forward way with no thought about the consequences. It's doubly hilarious for insinuating that posting things online is a big issue that we should focus law on. It's actually pretty fucking obnoxious actually, I'm sick of every thing I do online for the last 20 years being policed by hall monitors tunnel visioned on whatever social injustice issue of the day.
Going further, I want whatever I copy to be whatever I see when I hit copy. Which of course isn't possible in the interactive web.
But unfortunately devs for the last few decades think they can just leave everything undefined and change its meaning for their ad-hoc purposes every minute then claim computing is hard.
One absolutely obnoxious practice is how they all make their own fancy names for millicoins microcoins, etc.
I've been annoyed recently by this obnoxious neckbeard behavior when they make things zero based for no reason (other than to conform to their supposedly existent philosophy), like Ratpoison and Screen selecting windows by a zero based index, which means you have to move your hand to the far right of the keyboard to select the first window with the 0 key, the far left to select the second window, with the 1 key, and one to the right to select the third window, with the 2 key.
I so happen to have been trying to work out a tangible explanation on paper of which system is better on trips a few weeks ago, and could not come up with one (and none are given in the article nor the top comments in this thread).
On a side note, the moment you say, "zeroeth", you can no longer be sure anyone knows what you're talking about because at any moment you may count in English or this pretentious UN*Xtard dialect of English. Seems like another pedagogical stumbling block held on to boomers and boomer-wannabes who just want to have their little counter counter counter culture or whatever.
$ X='a[$(touch pwned1)]'; [[ $X -eq 0 ]]
Oddly, quoting doesn't fix it:
$ X='a[$(touch pwned2)]'; [[ "$X" -eq 0 ]]
Shells are not good for what they do. Literally half of any *sh script is just reading somedata.somefield but implemented with (poorly defined and poorly written) regex to compensate for some genius UN*X utility's output which is totally not meant to be parsed but we're still gonna parse it anyway because we didn't have the most simple foresight of how data will be delivered to other programs. Then there's stuff like working around crap to be able to do something like -c -arbitrary_input, such as -- which may or may not exist or be applicable. It's hilariously BAD. They are not fast to use as opposed to general purpose languages, because you are just adding a bunch of bugs to your system each time you take any RAD affordance it purports to offer.
*sh fits into the category of C for extremely poorly designed languages. In this case, instead of having bugs like duff's device and UB flying all over the place even where there's no rationale for it, we have a similarly poorly defined language where parts of the language itself may or may not exist (including the minimal set of commands you need in practice to get anything done, despite them being not part of the shell) depending on which implementation you use, and POSIX has to step in and try to post-hoc tell people what's portable and steer future direction, and you have random cargo cult like x -eq x$var (or whatever that was, yeah I've spent a week of my life learning *sh and hope to never spend another minute more).
The example where he shows editing a command is hilariously bad. It requires knowing some obscure shortcut in a bizarre unreadable manual, knowing how escape sequences work (if you want to change the key binding), having $EDITOR set. Basically you need a few years of UN*X indoctrination to understand all these mechanics, and you will still get them wrong, for example how $PS1 is always wrong (no not just me, in the big distros they are buggy). And as the command grows your shell is spammed and you quickly lose everything off scrollback, as opposed to simply assigning a name to the code you're working on or having an abbreviated form be displayed. Whatever your $EDITOR is set to will also be a thing that takes a year to become efficient in. Formatting with each bar on one line is also just another work around for text based languages. This is why all REPLs (which are just that: a quick hack) suck, despite being the fundamental core of an OS. It's just a poor approximation of what can much more easily and efficiently be done with a raster scan monitor as opposed to a terminal from the 70s.
Using the shell doesn't make you a hacker. It makes you a quack. 10 years ago I remember trying to do stuff on a UN*X system with only terminal, that involved merely printing some untrusted input, and I piped it through a small program I made to strip out anything outside [0x20, 0x7F]. 10 years later I had time to audit it and found out I was indeed correct. You literally can't do ANYTHING in the shell and be secure. It's a nightmare. What's RVM? I'm gonna go audit that. Zsh actually seems to be a bunch of security footguns. Even their security features are broken (such as bracketed paste, which is always broken anyway).
There is not even anything valuable in the shell that makes it worth preserving. It's entire job is to be compatible with a bunch of bad decisions made 50 years ago (yes, some of then were justified due to the paradigm being different back then). All your doing by using *sh is trying to be compatible with all these garbage tools. All these utilities like grep sed awk are moot (on top of being microcosms of the same issues of *sh) because you shouldn't be parsing things anyway. Imagine using this rube golberg shit in your mission critical embedded devices like vehicles.
> There's a reason why the status quo exists
Yes, it's called the status quo.
> text is universal
Which one, ASCII, code page 9000, or UTF-8? Are you saying just restrict to ASCII? Then we need custom solutions every time someone wants to talk a different language.
> lock in
I am locked into using retarded insecure terminal emulators because all my tools depend on it to render what you people call "text" which is supposdedely "simple" or "universal". Even vim breaks from unicode already. The primitive language of the OS should not be some poorly defined idea of "text", but algebraic data types.
> reading important
Which is better done by graphics that text. Just the fact that with a structural editor - an if statement spans the amount it appears to span, instead of having to trust someone to format it correctly - is already enough reason to ditch text.
Consider that if text had an advantage, it would be that you could cut some string in half as some sort of manipulation that saves time. What do I cut in half? Change >= to = ? There's basically no advantage of text. I don't want half of an if statement, that's what text allows me to do, it's a pointless feature that makes inputting programs harder. The basic element on the screen should be the if statement itself.
There is no advantage to a 1D language. Text is a 1D language. If you have
if (x) {
if (y) {
}
}
if (x) {
if (y) {
}}
}
The second piece to this is how the GUI works. Instead of showing long bit strings or hex encoding them in some pointless way, it allows you to assign names to these addresses as you come across them. When you see the address in some other page it will show up with the name you assigned and so you will recognize it.
A key point to this is that HTTPS does not actually cause you to know you are using the right domain name. Aside from the fact that HTTPS is untrustworthy due to the CA model, mybrand.com or mybrand.net or one of the other infinite number of legitimate sounding things could all be the correct domain for some brand, you would never know unless someone previously introduced you to the right domain name. Since you had to get it from somewhere, you may as well have received the public key at that point, which could be encoded in a QR code, or, on the internet, which is the main use case of petnames, trivially included as a link in some web 8.0[1] page or chat where you first heard of the brand.
1. I guess it will take them 6 more tries to get this right.
To put it differently, no petname system built on top of unix / web crap will ever be good. Everyone (like posters here) will not understand what they're doing and just write code that breaks it on all layers of the OS and GUIs. Guaranteed if Android starts using petnames more there will just be issues like it copies someone's petnames all over yours, shares the ones you didn't want to share, etc.
It's not even about free software. Having proprietary standards just produces shit software. See: word, zoom. Proprietary formats are not even a thing (the idea of making some simple text documents that need a certain OS to read and write is absurd) but forced cancer that only exists because the company tries hard enough to maintain their crapware.
i cant even imagine why you would downvote this. are you the one agreeing with OP's "no evidence" claim, or are you just some frothing idiot consumer who is upset that your little purchases arent being extolled as they usually are?
tl;dr yep, he could have been shoveling CRUD shit and making more money, or implementing high end algorithms within broken operating systems, or implementing high end algorithms with insufficient education or time to prove them, while getting dumber
scratch that he got a bug bounty for his work so his net gain is equal. check mate
I can't tell where you're coming from without getting to know you, but all these "works for me" forum posts are invalid for the simple fact that if I have a real conversation with someone in person, 99 times out of 100 it will just turn out they are acclimatized to slow half working bullshit. On forums the only reason they get away with spouting this nonsense is due to the upvote system and their cliques. Like if I complained about battlefield 2 taking 20 seconds to load the menu mid game back in 2004, a group of stupid forum posters will all either have a $2000 rig (in current dollars) that was able to bypass this bottleneck, or they're just some casual who played the game for 10 minutes in their life so they haven't had to open the menu a lot yet.
In the case of a signup form, it could and should have a standard solution that doesn't require amateurs to code it themselves, 20 years ago. Like a standard authentication protocol. And of course it should not rely on flaky communications like a verification email. All these things work for you because you're too normal, despite being terrible misconceived ideas. Since the web as a platform is a misconception, you could not make an application that uses a standard authentication protocol because the web introduces all kinds of problems due to its weird way of operating like the fact that you're vulnerable to CSRF by default and asinine nonsense like JSONP, and the fact that web applications aren't really a real mode of software but a bunch of hacks like embedding a script tag, setting the doc type, and fiddling with strange headers, and you can't really have libraries without all these fixes from 5 minutes ago like pinning hashes of resources and building some giant half working external dependency management system. Then at the end of the day it's still each website pulling the authentication code with whatever implementation of their choosing so you still can't trust it as well. Your "working" system is built out of a compatible stack of misconception-compatible software. The moment you misstep, for example if you want some privacy and put on a proxy, you will be severely punished since that breaks half of the web and leaves you with the overhead of doing workarounds for every single interaction.
* im not joking, this is what un*x culture appears to essentially boil down to. boomers were all hippies in the 70s despite presenting themselves as "austere" and "mature" "wise" individuals now, which had the unfortunate side effect of too much drugs. further research is needed to clarify whether brain damage is caused by drugs or un*x
any encoding in file names at all is a mistake. this includes character encodings too, which may sound like a non-sequitur but its not. in fact, files should only have unique identities, not names. names should be metadata. folder hierarchy should just be a user defined data structure that can reference these said "files". anyone who tries developing their own OS without copying extremely idiosyncratic un*x ideas and without being bogged down by the overhead of assembly language or C quickly learns this. an example of youngins discovering this is IPFS (and subsequently implementing it on top of broken un*x)