511–520 of 537 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look, you own the things you say and are responsible for their accuracy. Attacking people who rightfully correct your misinformed assertions and who want to steer you in a direction that will actually be effective in achieving your aims as "pedantic" does nothing to help your case. Ultimately, though, it's your call--do what you want.
Your “correction” was meaningless and incorrect. I stand by my assertion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Anyone should be free to research, discuss, and try to understand the law for themselves. Lawyers do not own the law. This isn't mere research and discussion; it's suggesting an outcome (i.e., "you're safe[r]"). That crosses a line into advice. > But if actually pulled into a courtroom, sure, get a lawyer. By the time you get pulled into a courtroom, it is often far too late. The time to talk to an attorney is well…
Tens of billions of dollars of infrastructure run on top of stagex, but I remain happy to ignore an unconstitutional, unenforceable, and badly worded law that does not and can not apply to me all the same. They will be successful at forcing corporate operating systems like MacOS, Windows, and maybe RedHat, but they have no power to compel code being added to independent international volunteer maintained open source…
Oh, this I've got to see. Show us the receipts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you really suggesting that armed conflict would be a better option here? Armed conflict is a last resort. It often leads to mass death and destruction, and just as often leads to worse authoritarianism, as in the French, Russian, and Chinese revolutions. Mockery was very successful in maintaining morale among oppressed groups in both Nazi and Soviet Europe, as well as in many Latin American dictatorships, in time…
> Are you really suggesting that armed conflict would be a better option here? Of course not. I'm simply refuting your assertion that "mockery is...the best weapon against authoritarianism." > If mockery weren’t an effective weapon, political cartoons and political satire (and establishment attacks on them) wouldn’t exist. Mockery can be effective in inspiring others to topple authoritarian regimes or amass public su…
Some of us with mockery, and hopefully some with legal and political talent behind the scenes.
I am just a mascot pointing and laughing at a stupid unenforceable law with scary intentions. The real fight is likely to be fought by legal professionals, not me, and that is fine.
My job will be to keep shipping changes that protect user privacy and security because that is what my skillset is for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. The stupid-ass law [1]: > "Internet-enabled device" means a smartphone, tablet, or personal laptop or desktop computer that provides cellular or wireless connectivity, is capable of connecting to the Internet, runs an operating system, and is capable of downloading and running applications. Enumerate all network interfaces. Are any of them cellular or wireless? No? Then the law doesn’t apply. [1] https://my.ilga.…
Finally, my insistence on wired Ethernet pays off. It sounds like you could even get away with a wireless USB dongle, as it’s not part of the computer.
"Runs an operating system" is about the only one that has its box ticked >99% of the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Are you really suggesting that armed conflict would be a better option here? Of course not. I'm simply refuting your assertion that "mockery is...the best weapon against authoritarianism." > If mockery weren’t an effective weapon, political cartoons and political satire (and establishment attacks on them) wouldn’t exist. Mockery can be effective in inspiring others to topple authoritarian regimes or amass public su…
Given my comments were in the top ten highest voted of the day, it encourages me that a -lot- of people think this law is dumb and ideally some subset of them will fight it with me. Some of us with mockery, and hopefully some with legal and political talent behind the scenes. I am just a mascot pointing and laughing at a stupid unenforceable law with scary intentions. The real fight is likely to be fought by legal pr…
One comment was, and that was your most inflammatory. Those tend to attract the most attention. The trick now is to expand that brief popularity on HN (which is a very narrow audience) to the general populace.
Linux distro founder here (stagex) I will never be compelled to implement this, and would never merge it. Every release requires quorum signatures by an international maintainer team, and the distro is designed to work offline-first, with some variants not even supporting network drivers in the kernel, so Illinois legislators can eat shit.
They'll just find a way to work around that then or blacklist and fine you
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what could they be compelled to stop doing here? Mechanically speaking, I mean. I can imagine fines or contempt of court, etc But how would you remove an international distro from "the marketplace" if it's free and not operating a business?
Same way anything else gets pulled from distribution. You shut down the servers, destroy keys, remove files, etc. Sure, the files may remain in circulation from unofficial sources, but that's not your problem, as long as you're no longer facilitating it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tens of billions of dollars of infrastructure run on top of stagex, but I remain happy to ignore an unconstitutional, unenforceable, and badly worded law that does not and can not apply to me all the same. They will be successful at forcing corporate operating systems like MacOS, Windows, and maybe RedHat, but they have no power to compel code being added to independent international volunteer maintained open source…
> Tens of billions of dollars of infrastructure run on top of stagex Oh, this I've got to see. Show us the receipts.
Look at my companies I work with via Distrust, and my resume. Most use stagex for their security critical operations, though I am unable to say which ones specifically. NDAs and all that. You could figure out a few of them if you looked.
I can tell you many many fortune 500 companies are relying on stagex for security critical use cases, and most are probably not even aware of it as they consume projects that wrap or build on stagex.
I feel like all of these laws are being designed backwards. Content providers, like MPAA films, should have to identify what sort of content they are providing. Then I can give my kids a device configured to allow some or all of that at my discretion. Requiring my kids' devices to advertise their age (or their age "bucket", as if that was a meaningful difference) to protect them is not doing me or my kids any favors.
Can we extend that beyond just parental controls? I'd love to permaban 90% of the internet from ever reaching me. But the laws are designed backwards because they're probably written for someone else's benefit. If this age verification stuff ever becomes plausible we always have the option of distributing actual Linux ISOs over bittorrent. Failing that, source code in RAR'd archives distributed across IPFS nodes and…
> source code in RAR
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the issue here is that while the people here are aware of the history and "utility" of laws like the one above, most people aren't and right now "regulate social media, the internet, and what my kid does with computers" is having quite a day. Inevitably all of this is framed in terms of keeping children safe, whereas piracy is at most a misdemeanor of very little consequence. Although I have no doubt that cou…
Ya, I think op needs to study the history of civil rights in the US on how to do these things. Quite often the people that were getting arrested and challenging the state were specifically chosen because they didn't have any kind of dirt to dig up. The state is perfectly fine with playing dirty inside and outside the courtroom. The state would love the person brining a constitutional challenge to suddenly be marred i…