491–500 of 526 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As an individual or a small business, ones does not have an alternative to github Why do you say that?
Because all the projects I contribute to are on github. And that's where all the developers who contribute to my projects have accounts. There's nothing magical about the github system, but it's where the network of projects and developers lives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Antitrust hasn't kept up with technology. im not sure its so much a technology issue as much as an ideology shift...? (a.k.a robert bork and the "its not consumer harm if prices keep going down" school of thought with regard to anti-trust)
It's very much technology. With Standard Oil, prices didn't go down, except in the very short term. Monopoly can seek out higher profits once monopoly is obtained. The pricing of LinkedIn, of dating web sites (almost all now owned by match.com), and of many other services is astronomically high, mostly because they can.
> many other services is astronomically high, mostly because they can
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most political discussion fits your description perfectly, so of course it does. Having to explain yourself long form leads to people attacking you and often being correct.
> Having to explain yourself long form leads to people attacking you and often being correct. Typically, people just take a paragraph or so of a long form political argument out of context and use it to call the person making the argument evil. Which is basically the same principle as the typical political attack ad where you take a sentence your opponent said out of context to make your opponent look like a crazy ex…
Read the books “mindfucked” and “targeted” for the detail on Cambridge Analytica (actually Strategic Communications Laboratory or SCL group) how it was a cognitive warfare firm developed for counter terrorism which was unleashed on the American, British (and now presumably Brazilian, Italian and French public).
People are not polarized just due to social media - social media is now a cognitive warfare battleground where cognitive heuristics are the trenches.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cryptocurrencies are our only counter yet against the abuses of the financial system by the governments. In some countries this abuse is only potential, on others - already very real. In a country where a dictator can make you starve with a snap of the fingers, cryptocurrencies are vital to survival. So even 10x more energy 'wasted' on such an indespensable service would still be a bargain I'd take.
Protecting the wealthy from the government isn't exactly a cause many want to fight for. Using the government to reign in the wealthy is much more popular In a country where a dictator can make you starve with the snap of the finger, what are you going to do, eat your virtual coins from your jail cell? Technology is notably not a solution to social problems
If there will ever be an uprising, it'll be funded with nothing else but cryptocurrency.
So yes, cryptocurrencies are worth every watt of energy they use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
E2EE generally doesn't obscure who is talking to who AFAICT. Onion routing does, sure. Ethically I find that area very much a double-edged sword. It's great for privacy and people evading speech-hostile regimes, but it does also enable trading and propagation of CSAM etc. It's why I've never run a Tor or Freenet (does that still exist?) node, I don't want to support that stuff with my resources.
E2EE obscures everything, that is why it is called end-to-end. If Alice and Bob and John and Piper are all communicating with pseudonymous names in a Matrix room, you do not know who is talking to who or what they are talking about.
No, it just encrypts between the ends, hence it being called "End to End Encryption". You're going beyond that if you're talking about hiding the fact that the origin and destination are talking to each other at all.
> If Alice and Bob and John and Piper are all communicating with pseudonymous names in a Matrix room, you do not know who is talking to who or what they are talking about.
Maybe so, but in other E2EE products the fact of communication is not obscured to someone who has access to the traffic. E2EE just means there isn't a server in the middle that decrypts everything before relaying, or any sort of master key they could use to do that with.
Matrix looks like a great system, but it's not the only E2EE product, nor does it define the term.
The commenters saying be reasonable, they were sanctioned, GitHub had to do this, should look into the last time code was made illegal or similar turmoil and what the developer community did in response…It was not accepting sanctions or govt failures to understand code as “well that’s that.” - Phil Zimmerman (PGP) was under criminal investigation for arms exports by releasing the code for consumer encryption. The cas…
I think its important to make a distinction between GitHub attempting to ensure they are in legal compliance with a sanction and approving of the sanction happening at all. You can disagree with the sanction while still being understanding of GitHub trying to cut ties with the sanctioned entity. Or be critical of them being heavy handed in their compliance but agree with the sanction in general.
People on Twitter are either wilfully dumb or simply ignorant. GitHub had to do this. It was required of them by law. Tornado was sanctioned . > These prohibitions include the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any blocked person and the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person. This is, unambiguously, di…
Does Tornado being sanctioned mean that everyone who has contributed in the past also needs to be blocked? (It’s not clear from the thread whether the people blocked contributed after, or only before, the sanction.) For what it’s worth, I don’t see much evidence of people being upset at GitHub in the thread. There’s talk about decentralized alternatives, but not much actual pinning the blame on them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is where the missunderstanding seems to keep happening (regarding White Phosphorous and Tornado Cash). The mere existence of tools like Tornado Cash or White Phosphorous is not illegal (at least wasn't until yesterday), but illegal use of those always was. The distinction is important, but seems to have been lost somewhere along the way.
Providing `White Phosphorous` manufacturing service for people who you know use it for illegal acts is also illegal.
Its main purpose is to ban/restrict usage of inhumane weapons, not the production of such. But I might have missed something. If so, mind pointing me to the right section?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...that enabled nefarious people to go about their deeds unpunished.
I know right! Just like the browser you are using to post this comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think its important to make a distinction between GitHub attempting to ensure they are in legal compliance with a sanction and approving of the sanction happening at all. You can disagree with the sanction while still being understanding of GitHub trying to cut ties with the sanctioned entity. Or be critical of them being heavy handed in their compliance but agree with the sanction in general.
> still being understanding of GitHub trying to cut ties with the sanctioned entity What is the name of this sanctioned entity that GitHub supposedly cut ties with? You'll note that none of the developers who had their accounts suspended were themselves sanctioned.