6,975 karma · joined May 16, 2014
Is there precedent for the US actually "banning" software? I know for example the Kaspersky ban and tiktok ban, but both of those were either banning the sales or banning the service. IIRC neither made the actual software illegal.
What is an example of a specific software being illegal to possess? What is an example of a specific software being illegal to use if it is not used to break other laws (copyright, etc.) or talks to banned service providers?
Closest thing I can think of is restricting the export of cryptography in the 90's, but that was not even close to what you are suggesting.
In both cases this is not taking the whole country offline, and for both of them you can easily bypass the "block" by using any other DNS provider. You don't even need VPN/TOR or anything else complicated.
Cool that they are there, but not suitable for what most people actually want.
"Open weights" is for the most part a term that is meaningless besides being technically able to run it on your own hardware.
I don't think we have a proper term for what you are reaching for, and proper open-source models (training, training-data, etc. being fully open) are scarce.
According to who? From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_weights:
> Publishing these values allows others to download and use the model, while permission to modify, fine-tune or redistribute it depends on its license.
Those restrictions are definitely not compatible with the definition of open-source/FOSS. I think you have a much stricter view of what open-weights means than the industry.
< HTTP/1.1 200 OK
< Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2026 08:35:26 GMT
< Server: Apache/2.4.68 (Debian)
< Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=63072000; includeSubDomains; preload
< Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *
< Upgrade: h2
< Connection: Upgrade
< Last-Modified: Sun, 13 Sep 2026 06:23:37 GMT
< ETag: "85-65b575b9634c9"
< Accept-Ranges: bytes
< Content-Length: 133
< Content-Type: video/mp4
<
version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
oid sha256:9f7709c3cb163bf07a762873332fe40e552f750bcf310ce77c77f5b197b61426
size 92474860Pretty bad for a package manager, but this seems like something I would unfortunately expect from a harness/agent.
Now it'll be "Just don't use the site and encourage anyone else to stay away"
I also don't find it on the site of "Klaus Schmeh" that it claims to be on a list of "Top 50 unsolved encrypted messages": https://klausschmeh.net/?s=Cyphral
Looks like the best source I can find is this: https://scienceblogs.de/klausis-krypto-kolumne/2014/11/17/we... which seems real-ish?
It's not. They control a long-term high-value asset (the domain tesla.com). They decided to delegate part of that asset to a large number of "random" people that they do not have a contract or agreement with.
Being able to issue certs for cloud IPs has nothing to do with this since it is not a long term asset, and if it is you probably don't delegate it to random people to control unless you do not value that asset.
Systemd is probably on 80%+ linux systems that people interact with, and 95%+ that people manually configure.
If that is true then a lot (or most) of android phones run on "custom silicon" and the term is meaningless.
They basically bought IBM's good reputation name and style and used it for both IBM-alikes and budget machines.
Some of it was good machines, some of it was crap.