Those projects should default to hosts less geared toward corporate governancy; custom internet domain being the first requirement.
That's one of the best things with git (among with other DVCSs), it is incredibly resilient. I remember during an interview of Linus Torvalds about backups, he says he doesn't backup his work in the traditional sense, he has no real reason to when everything he does is copied millions of time.
The real point of GitHub for such a project is because GitHub is really popular, and it has a social network aspect to it. So yes, you are going to lose it if you get kicked out of GitHub, but by choosing a lesser known platform you won't get it in the first place. Also, their website is not on GitHub, so kicking them out of GitHub won't make them disappear completely.
To your point, it was briefly possible to buy them for under $100 until word spread that they make decent steam machines, so I'm guessing that Sony doesn't need to sell any games to turn a profit. Even at their current prices it would be far cheaper to use the BC-250 for local inference.
I don't follow your logic. If the BC-250 was made from PS5 quality control failures, then why would their pricing have any bearing on the PS5's profitability, except as an effort to increase margins? Does cost not remain independent of pricing?
As far as I cam infer from what you said, it could be that the PS5 was sold at a loss and still is even with the BC-250 helping, or that it was sold at a profit and is still is with the BC-250 helping. What am I missing?
The only way they can lose money is if their existing users stop buying games and that's not happening yet. Maybe when vibe coded community servers for online games get better and everyone jailbreaks their console because they don't have to worry about getting banned.
But even with that every unit sold is a net positive for them because they make money off the sale, and if they run out they can use it to justify higher prices.
Looking for similar UX to https://archive.softwareheritage.org/save/ (which archives an source control repo on demand from a url, but is still a single point of failure)
And nothing is stopping you from renting a VPS from a provider based in that country and running gitlab or something.
The worst part is sharing around a sketchy URL but, that just comes with the territory when you're in the DMCA dodging parts of the internet.
Renting a VPS from a country that genuinely doesn't is pretty risky for numerous reasons, least of all international sanctions.
Private keys and private endpoints is all we need
>Radicle is an open source, peer-to-peer code collaboration stack built on Git. Unlike centralized code hosting platforms, there is no single entity controlling the network. Repositories are replicated across peers in a decentralized manner, and users are in full control of their data and workflow.
GitHub isn't just used to host your actual git work tree and everyone knows that, it's an issue tracker, an easy way for projects to get contributions as everyone already has a GitHub account, an easy way to receive bug reports, CI, a website for your project, a popularity metric like GitHub stars (For better or worse).
I struggle to think of anywhere on the entire open internet you could put something like this where it could not be taken down.
I hate the centralization of centralized git watering holes, but it is what it is. And frankly getting older and not as able to keep up, having all the cool projects in one place would massively help my street cred.
The problem, of course, still arises when you want to guide users to your hidden service, when sharing the link anywhere will get it taken down. This already happens with magnet links.
It's been proven time and time again that the only way to pull something like this off is to be completely untraceable. If the feds can ever find you, that's it. Which creates difficulty because in order for somebody to be able to visit your site with a normal web browser, they need to be able to trace something, and that can always be attacked. Even if that doesn't reach all the way to the source, it means you have to both produce infinite new traceable points and somehow distribute the knowledge to your clearweb users too.
> in order for somebody to be able to visit your site with a normal web browser, they need to be able to trace something
I've been thinking about these problems for a long time. A hard truth is that this statement applies to every protocol, not merely normal web browsers. For a TOR hidden service, there are six intermediaries that exist in the real world and can be traced one after another. The system relies on this being prohibitively hard for attackers (based on the rule of law with supporting laws, among other things).
The same truth even applies to content centric networking! You can go after whomever may be selflessly hosting a specific piece of content, and keep turning up the heat to crack down on it. Maybe you won't be able to find the publisher if they decide to lay low, but you can certainly make it so that a given piece of content is not easy to access - by accessing it the easy ways and applying outside-the-system pressure to whomever provides it.
The implication of this is that in addition to technical means, communications freedom also intrinsically relies on social means. Those social means are bolstered by most people having access to free communications, so they support the types of protections that allow the technical means to operate. Think of a hidden service working to make themselves accessible from the open web as public outreach.
I'm just pointing out the huge middleground of essentially legitimate activity that ends up bothering some entrenched US interests and inevitably gets squashed on Github. That dynamic itself ends up being a bait and switch that kills a lot of project momentum. It would be great if these communities developed a best practice of using some code host that simply shrugged off nastygrams from the western legal system.