josephcsible

> This is at least plausible to me: to have effective sandboxing, you need to restrict the APIs that a device can call, which means blocking the ability to generate and run arbitrary machine code o…

> The GNU project makes it very clear that they are striving for the freedom of the user to modify and adapt the software that they use. So every time a GNU tool is used in the private back-end par…

The key is that the manufacturer doesn't have a way in either. The GPLv3 is okay with making software absolutely immutable in a piece of hardware. It's just not okay with locking the user ou…

This article recommends that manufacturers put the Secure Boot public key in OTP memory, where the eventual owner of the device will be unable to change it, and also warns that the GPLv3 will prevent …

Why wouldn't they be allowed to? They didn't sign the treaty.

> the first prohibits you from circumventing ANY technological measure (yes, even something as simple as a right-click blocker, domain lock, Youtube's rolling URL cipher, or what have you) The…

Movie industry: we're not going to give a bunch of people any way to pay us for our content. Also movie industry: why are so many people watching our content without paying us for it?

They didn't just vote no. They basically said they're not implementing it even if everyone else votes yes.

What functionality can you only get with objects, and not with anything that is part of the FP paradigm?

Automatically silently stripping characters from posts seems like a bad idea. If we want to forbid characters from posts, wouldn't it be way safer to prevent the post and tell the user to remove …

Given the original maintainer's attitude toward copyright, I wouldn't be surprised if he just took the changes anyway, thus putting us back in the same situation we're in now, where onl…

You're trying to make this scarier than it is with the word "implications". The only thing you can't do is to create a non-free work that uses other people's copyleft code. Wh…

> explicit that it doesn't appear to have left any leeway for common sense. Why did they simply follow the explicit procedures of the CoC rather than stopping to question if what they were doi…

> This reminds me of the systemd arguments all over again I picked up on a completely different common theme: people are upset because major distros replaced a thing that worked with something else…

I assume you're also in favor of banning green energy because it puts coal miners out of work.

Did you just pull 1% out of the air?

> Public transit can't haul freight cross-country. Self-driving vehicles can. Freight should be hauled cross-country on rails, not on roads.

You're allowed to smoke in your own house, but you're not allowed to have large gatherings in your own house.

> I mean if they have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear, right? You can't use that line on groups of people you don't like while also wanting privacy for groups of people you…

Higher-risk people are more likely to be pro-lockdown. Poorer people are more likely to be pro-reopen.

> But are those being ignored (not sure about the Amoeba bit)? Do we routinely mock those who say smoking is bad? Do we ignore traffic fatalities by ripping seat belts and air bags out of vehicles?…

> wearing a mask when you're sick That's very different than forcing everyone to wear masks all the time just in case anyone is ever sick.

> I've personally never seen a website that outright refuses to work with notifications disabled The example in the linked article is a site that covers the page with a gray box and an arrow p…

If you have that site open in a tab, then it could do that anyway, and if you don't, then it could just stop talking to that site and pretend your computer is off until you visit it again.

Here's another idea for this: how about a "stealth deny" button that will tell the website that you allowed notifications, but not actually show them to you?

> Biden staffers, after reviewing schedules, denied that the events described in the emails took place. This seems to dodge the actual matter at hand. The question is whether the email conversation…

It's not bash hate. It's that a lot of the time, you don't have bash available (e.g., BusyBox environments), and you want your scripts to still work.

What super certificates? What exactly is the new single point of failure?