waon

European integration did not happen before WW2, because you know, Europe was at war.

Moreover, criticizing FDR's response to the great depression while solely condemning Europe for its post-war policies isn't a great counterargument.

How telling that in your version of events, "massive democratic backsliding" happened right after the conclusion of WW2. Yikes.

The person you're replying to doesn't abide by their own stated principles. It's a mistake to think that they're merely reminding you of the rules. No, it's an order.

Just look at how many political comments they made. Especially the downvoted and/or flagged ones. They are horrendous. So many words spent justifying ICE murders and lying about how the victims were violent terrorists. They spend all day thinking about how best to downplay the egregious actions of the current regime, at one point writing how ICE agent's masks are just merely "face/neck warmers."

This isn't a person who should be taken seriously.

Periodic reminder that there are people seeking to derail discussions critical of AI and divert attention away from the actual substance of these issues.

This is just like how Windows is turning into an "agentic OS."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45920239

I wonder how many people installed VS Code wanting a text editor, only for it to become something else.

The same page from last year:

https://web.archive.org/web/20240814025843/https://code.visu...

This is what Republicans do. It is their job.

Defense in depth only works if you put up meaningful security measures. As numerous people including GP has pointed out, you still retain the means to log user traffic. That's not meaningfully secure than the alternatives.

More importantly, trusting random strangers is much better than trusting a known hostile actor. During the Freenode fiasco, you have repeatedly demonstrated yourself to be untrustworthy and vengeful. Everyone saw your petty revenges against people who dared voice the slightest of criticisms. Why on earth should anyone trust that you'll uphold your customer's privacy no matter what?

The whole community fled from Freenode as a direct consequence of your actions. You aren't convincing anyone with your "debunkings," dear masterdebater.

I find websites punishing users over their choice of browsers to be questionable. But if they're going down that route, why on earth allow Chrome, a mass surveillance product made by the richest ad company in the world? The level of harm being done is so much bigger with Chrome, both in terms of scale and the effect it has on society. It's not even comparable.

I wish the authors won't be demotivated by this if they ever see this top comment. Borg is such an invaluable project done by volunteers. They don't deserve the blatant abuse demonstrated by the OP. Even more so when the reasons are either the OP ignoring a well written documentation or some unreasonable demand to degrade the security of the software by prominently showing how to disable encryption for a remote backup system. The notion that having the setup command generate encryption keys is so "elitist" that it warrants abusive insults is ... beyond me.

I believe some of the Chromium folks are partly responsible for this. Though it's probably not a planned "campaign" of any sort, I've seen some prominent figures constantly direct hatred toward other browser vendors online, and countless webdevs piling on. I'm not posting links because many of them are highly toxic, but browser developers on the receiving end has expressed their frustrations more than once.

According to one of the new ops for the now unofficial Freenode #fsf channel, #reactos may have stayed. If true, the count would be four.

> @freenode_CrystalMath:matrix.org

> and i'm a reactos developer, though we're not on libera at all

> @freenode_CrystalMath:matrix.org

> we're only on freenode and mattermost

> Worth noting that it's quite common for people to not be publicly listed as part of Github organizations.

My bad, I didn't know that was a thing.

It's quite concerning that ailin-nemui, who made the prior commit migrating to Libera currently isn't listed as part of the irssi organization[1]. According to GitHub stats, this is the person behind most of the code in irssi[2].

[1]: https://github.com/orgs/irssi/people

[2]: https://github.com/irssi/irssi/graphs/contributors

I wonder if this is the official stance of the project itself, since this commit was authored by a person who hadn't made a single commit for more than 5 years.

https://github.com/irssi/irssi/commits?author=GeertHauwaerts

It's subtle misinformation that's designed to change how people unconsciously perceive PWAs. When people bring up PWAs, they commonly refer to a particular set of APIs which has a tendency of mainly being a Google-driven effort. GP is muddying the waters by instead framing it as the HTML spec itself and implying it's official.

If this isn't a clear case of gaslighting, I don't know what is.

> HTML5 (which is now called Progressive Web Apps / PWA)

This is clear gaslighting and is verifiably false. Progressive Web Apps is a Google thing, coined by a Google engineer[1] and promoted by Google[2]. The HTML living standard does not include a single mention of the term[3].

[1]: https://infrequently.org/2015/06/progressive-apps-escaping-t...

[2]: https://web.dev/progressive-web-apps/

[3]: https://github.com/whatwg/html/search?q=progressive+web+app&...

> The fact that the read me provided examples specifically downloading RIAA relevant content is pretty damning.

That's not a fact, that's baseless rumor. Here's the actual README:

https://gitlab.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl

And furthermore:

https://gitlab.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl#can-you-add-support-f...

So what was that thing about "twisting things in your direction" again?

The test cases only downloads the first 10KB for automated testing, as was mentioned beyond the first sentence of my original comment.

Did you actually read the README, or are you just spreading rumors? Because I did and have no idea what you're talking about. BTW the README can be found at https://gitlab.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl if anyone wants to see for themselves.

As for the test cases, this is what the article has to say about it:

> they are automated test cases where the test just downloads the first 10KB, which amounts to a couple of seconds at most. This is certainly fair use, but the project is fully functional without these test cases.

So what part of this article are you agreeing with? I doubt we read the same article.

> Well, consider that if Apple were an open platform, this default would be set by most "for free".

> If the platform invited the user to set a default, or was "biased towards their user's preferences", as most would select google, google would be the "natural default".

You almost make it sound like defaulting to Google without making people aware of the alternatives is “open” and unbiased.”

Please don't redefine privacy as "we know everything about you and we're going to exploit that information for profit but won't give it to anyone else except governments whatever their purpose may be because they only ever use it for a good cause." That's not what it is.

For this particular feature, there can be no meaningful transparency whatsoever. Permission to use TCP or UDP is very, very different from permission to access location info. Any user can easily imagine the possible consequences of allowing the latter, but the definitely not the former. Heck, no one can possibly know the actual consequences unless someone goes through the effort to reverse engineer websites using this feature.

I’m not convinced because many of those “legitimate websites” don’t have a very good track record of respecting user security and privacy. Given past events, I find it hard to believe that the ad industry or the entertainment industry or any other industry won’t abuse access to these APIs. To make it worse, if popular websites wants permission to use these highly-invasive APIs, users would have no choice but to cave in. This worries me a lot.

Even if you don’t consider bad intentions, the security implications are huge. Imagine if Zoom had used this feature. The security fiasco a few months back would’ve been made a whole lot worse.

Mitigated how? Websites are going to force users to click "allow."

This proposal would make ebay's job of port scanning their users a lot easier.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23436775

> That’s not the point of defamation laws.

So Japanese defamation laws were designed to facilitate criminals, is that what you're suggesting? There surely are many problems with the political and legal system in Japan, but I think it's beyond ridiculous to assert that the law was created with the intent to facilitate criminals. The most likely explanation is that it's designed to prevent people from exposing every enbarassing details about others. Do note that "embarrassing" doesn't mean "criminal" here.

> In Japan, it’s perfectly legal to record someone

Slightly off-topic, but I don't believe it's that simple. People do have to respect each other's privacy.

> but making the fact that the person is dangerous and not in police custody will get you in trouble, and the person who assaulted you will use the video against you.

Not all video evidence is actual proof that a crime has been committed. If it didn't lead to convictions, then it's not surprising that you'd get in trouble for disemminating it as actual proof. And let me remind you that the Japanese legal system is notorious for its startling high conviction rate.

Another issue I have with your assertion is that video evidence of crime is often disemminated by the Japanese media way before it reaches the courts [1][2]. Some of these are picked directly from social media. Yet no one ever got in trouble for it, contradicting your statement. So far, you've provided zero evidence that what you said is commonplace in Japan.

[1]: https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2019/08/5209ea0c6818-road...

[2]: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/10/04/national/kobe-e...

The topic was about Japanese defamation laws. Outside Japan, privacy laws would cover these cases.

Also note that facts that “harm someone's reputation” isn’t indicative of illegal or even immoral conduct. For example, having caught the COVID19 disease might harm one’s reputation, but it doesn’t make one a bad person however true it is.

I think it’s more reflective of corporate lobbying.

This seems like FUD. How are the laws itself “excess and absurd” compared to rest of the democratic world? It’s also strange to assert Japan has “strong privacy laws” when the exact opposite is happening in this very article we’re discussing.

> In Japan, the person who committed the (sexual) crime can reliably sue you for ruining their reputation and win

Unfortunately, this is not an uncommon thing outside of Japan [1]. And to be fair, you can’t just put a blanket ban on defamation lawsuits because it’s not wrong to sue for defamation if the allegation of sexual misconduct is in fact false. I don’t believe the majority of them to be the case, but ultimately, it’s for the courts to decide.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/12/arts/defamation-me-too.ht...

> Stating actual plain facts about a person that harms their image on any public platform will land you in trouble, unless it’s something that’s clearly in the public interest to know

Whoa. This the whole point of having defamation laws. Would you rather live in a world where every embarrassing details about your life can be published online?