ColanR

There's a lot of hard problems in space, though. We've solved a few of them - enough, at least, so that talking about large nuclear reactors in space should not be dismissed as a hoax.

Your source is ignoring the fact that limitations on nuclear power in space are largely political. If we could put something bigger up there without concern it would be interpreted as a nuke, we would.

Newpipe is the much better app for youtube on mobile.

It definitely looks like it could be.

What font do you use for this? It looks weird with my defaults.

I once seriously considered trying to build something that included math symbols in the syntax. It's pretty cool to see that I don't have to.

Mathematica does this, and they solve the keyboard problem with floating palettes of symbols.

The original APL385 font is one of my favorites for coding.

> It just creates a scapegoat to blame when things go wrong.

That's just how it works for other engineering disciplines; with the license, the scapegoat has the legal power to refuse responsibility until they're confident things won't go wrong.

I think they're just speeding towards the end of time faster than the rest of us.

I dunno. "Trite" and "substantiative" usually don't go together.

I mean, there's not much to elaborate on beyond what they said: "Zero substantive content, pure regurgitation."

Do the satellites in the photo have the new shades on them? I'd be interested to know how much the situation has improved with the improved anti-reflection.

That's the wrong bet to make, because those are the people that will end up using the Microsoft WSL.

From what I can tell, the problems with Canonical will sort themselves out when the market they've created for themselves is eaten by Microsoft's incorporation of Linux into Windows.

The only people left using 'pure' Linux/Unix will be those who care about quality software, FOSS, and privacy. I hope that day comes sooner than later.

I'm not making a disingenuous argument, I'm saying exactly the same thing that most of the people replying to your original post are saying.

You've taken the phrase and made up a new definition for it. I'm saying that the phrase already has a definite meaning. Feel free to make up your own phrase though...so long as it's unique.

I think you're the one missing the point, which is that you're misusing the term 'conspiracy theory'.

The NSA engaged in a conspiracy, which was to "hoover up everything in sight". There was a theory (which was largely dismissed) that the NSA was in fact doing this.

It was therefore a conspiracy theory that the NSA was doing what it was doing. That is the point: please use the phrase correctly.

> A conspiracy theory is something that has been proven to be untrue, but people still believe it and pass it on.

No, it's not. It's a theory that a conspiracy has taken place.

Second. It's the single biggest reason I'm still on firefox.

There's also greasemonkey [0] and violentmonkey [1].

[0] https://www.greasespot.net/

[1] https://github.com/violentmonkey/violentmonkey

That's too far from being a first impression.

> in the post where that quote originally appeared, the author recommended as an alternative to Signal a tool that wasn't even end-to-end encrypted by default

You seem really hung up on that. A transient recommendation has very little to do with stated expectation that "a tool which claims to be secure [should] actually be secure".

> I make these criticisms because I want them to live up to the ideals they proclaim - it's with the hope that they'll change for the better.

Thanks. It's important that projects are held to high standards, even if they're hard to achieve. Otherwise there'd be no pushback against pure pragmatism.

The EFF reference at the bottom of that link provides a useful alternative position:

> What’s the legal theory behind warrant canaries?

> The First Amendment protects against compelled speech. For example, a court held that the New Hampshire state government could not require its citizens to have “Live Free or Die” on their license plates. While the government may be able to compel silence through a gag order, it may not be able to compel an ISP to lie by falsely stating that it has not received legal process when in fact it has.

> Have courts upheld compelled speech?

> Rarely. In a few instances, the courts have upheld compelled speech in the commercial context, where the government shows that the compelled statements convey important truthful information to consumers. For example, warnings on cigarette packs are a form of compelled commercial speech that have sometimes been upheld, and sometimes struck down, depending on whether the government shows there is a rational basis for the warning.

> Have courts upheld compelled false speech?

> No, and the cases on compelled speech have tended to rely on truth as a minimum requirement. For example, Planned Parenthood challenged a requirement that physicians tell patients seeking abortions of an increased risk of suicidal ideation. The court found that Planned Parenthood did not meet its burden of showing that the disclosure was untruthful, misleading, or not relevant to the patent’s decision to have an abortion.

> Are there any cases upholding warrant canaries?

> Not yet. EFF believes that warrant canaries are legal, and the government should not be able to compel a lie. To borrow a phrase from Winston Churchill, no one can guarantee success in litigation, but only deserve it.

I thought that first comment had some inappropriately personal things to say about ddvault and his article. It also seemed like they didn't really respond with substance to the what the article said.

I think Drew responded to that. I thought this was a key quote:

> Off the bat, let me explain that I expect a tool which claims to be secure to actually be secure. I don’t view “but that makes it harder for the average person” as an acceptable excuse. If Edward Snowden and Bruce Schneier are going to spout the virtues of the app, I expect it to actually be secure when it matters - when vulnerable people using it to encrypt sensitive communications are targeted by smart and powerful adversaries....it’s your responsibility to clearly explain the drawbacks and advantages of the tradeoffs you make. If you make broad and inaccurate statements about your communications product being “secure”, then when the political prisoners who believed you are being tortured and hanged, it’s on you.

> poor education

I think you're discounting the number of people involved with such conspiracies for whom that discription is not true.

What I never see mentioned are cheap FPGA dev boards that don't come with any peripherals. I guess those aren't worth the pain of adding the peripherals back on?

I'm surprised (but maybe I shouldn't be) that there's no mention at all of antennas. I guess it's a lot easier to get a signal from something in line of sight above you.

I think the true hacker would learn by doing. Good luck!

The countries of origin of the peers downloading that torrent is pretty cool to see. A fairly broad cross-section of the world.

It's unfortunate, but I don't think you're wrong.