infinity0

> That's rather inherent: if you create a network whose primary feature is anonymity and lack of rules, your early adopters will be everyone barred by the rules of other services, which means you become a cesspool.

> Tor did a good job with marketing and optics early on, to make its intended use cases highly visible.

I used to work on Freenet. The mechanic you're pointing out doesn't have to be the dominant effect if the system performs as well as the alternatives. If everything else is equal (speed and convenience), users would of course prefer to have more security than less. If the performance and usability is only slightly worse, users may still be willing to choose security over that (e.g. Tor) - people today are becoming more aware of just how much their data can get abused.

Unfortunately for Freenet the technology wasn't capable enough - the security wasn't worth the usability and performance tradeoffs for most users. That doesn't mean strong security inherently attracts unpleasant types.

> Corporate espionage and military intelligence are not clearly separated in China, and this is due to the culture and values of the Chinese Communist Party.

Any specific examples or accusations????

> However, critics point out that its founder, Ren Zhengfei, was a former engineer in the country's army and joined the Communist Party in 1978. There are also questions about how independent of state influence any large Chinese company can be.

Is this really the best they can come up with? I've never heard any more specific accusations, in any media. Sounds pretty racist.

(I have seen specific accusations that Huawei is violating sanctions, but that is a separate concern from national security in infrastructure.)

More relevant than your opinion.

> that repulsive force will, by definition, move the negative mass further toward you.

only if the repulsive force is negative gravity.

If a positive-mass electron attracts a negative-mass electron, the repulsive electromagnetic force will still keep them from making it all the way there.

> What about shell traversal? > [..] For example, if the CWD is “/foo/bar”, and a user calls “cd ..”, then the underlying call may be transformed into “chdir /foo/bar/..”, which can be canonicalized to “/foo”.

So fuchsia also won't have CWD, then? Because if it has CWD, then the process can always chdir / rendering this lack-of-.. exercise pointless.

> I don’t want to have to keep 5 different app stores installed to have access to everything.

The nice thing about F-Droid is that the repository format is open. So you only need one "app-store" app installed (F-Droid), then add multiple app sources that are each controlled by some app curator. For example, the "F-Droid repo", the "Guardian Project repo", the "copperhead OS repo", the "micro G repo", etc etc. This allows for a unified user experience without centralising app execution power in the hands of one organisation.

If you've used GNU/Linux this is exactly how package repos work (and what F-Droid was inspired by), since several decades before the term "App Store" was invented.

> The police said they have upgraded their tech to avoid issues like this in the future.

  if (person_id == "Dong Mingzhu") {
    // TODO: generalise this
    return false
  }

or just learn Haskell and realise that this whole concept is just monadic bind, written simply as >>=

bro, correlation causes causation

The way this text does the geometric product is trying to be intuitive by immediately giving a "physical" interpretation as the sum of the inner and outer products. However the physical interpretations breaks down when trying to multiply three of these together.

I think Ben Lynn's approach is actually better: https://crypto.stanford.edu/~blynn/haskell/ga.html (Part 1)

It starts off more abstract, defining the geometric product simply as string concatenation (as in "free monoid" if you're familiar with that term, which you would if you have intermediate Haskell knowledge) plus a very natural constraint. From this natural constraint one can then deduce the sum-based interpretation that the OP gives.

The natural constraint is then further generalised and justified in more detail in Part 3: https://crypto.stanford.edu/~blynn/haskell/cga.html

Instead of developing Guice, Google should have just rewritten their entire codebase in Haskell, which actually has meaningful abstractions, as opposed to the non-abstract indirection crap that is "dependency injection".

Fuck Guice.

blockchain

Can you put some numbers on that? How much money was transferred, in today's dollars?

Why are you calling my rationality "ideology"?

It is perfectly rational not to want to pay for other people, if they don't also pay for themselves.

It is obvious that some societal services need income from everyone, so I am perfectly happy to pay tax - as long as everyone else pays their fair share.

OTOH you seem to be blinded by some ideology that pretends that the rest of the world doesn't exist, and that only your own actions matter.

No, because I can't be sure that my peers also "take advantage" of it to the same extent.

I and many people are happy to contribute more, but only if others also contribute more. Especially if people better off than me (like my landlord) aren't paying their fair share, that strongly indicates to me that I should not pay my fair share either.

What stops the thing from growing indefinitely, but also fast enough when damaged to return to the "original" state?

If there's a "surface coating" which when damaged, causes the "inside" to "grow" again, how does the coating repair itself, to stop the "inside" from growing beyond the original surface?

It seems this is the preferred URL: https://github.com/xoreaxeaxeax/sandsifter - for example the issue tracker is enabled, and has 45 issues, whereas the other URL has the issue tracker disabled.

Can one of the admins fix?

I figured it out, it's because Debian enables PIE and that somehow causes GCC not to be able to satisfy its own rules for allowing inline-assembly to modify %rsp to the value required by this program.

Can anyone actually get this to compile? I failed last year, and it's still failing:

    $ CFLAGS=-fPIC make clean all
    rm -f *.o injector
    cc -fPIC -c injector.c -o injector.o -Wall
    injector.c:321:93: warning: excess elements in array initializer
      .start={.bytes={0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00}, .len=0},
                                                                                                 ^~~~
    injector.c:321:93: note: (near initialization for ‘total_range.start.bytes’)
    injector.c:322:91: warning: excess elements in array initializer
      .end={.bytes={0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff}, .len=0},
                                                                                               ^~~~
    injector.c:322:91: note: (near initialization for ‘total_range.end.bytes’)
    injector.c: In function ‘inject’:
    injector.c:778:2: warning: asm operand 15 probably doesn’t match constraints
      __asm__ __volatile__ ("\
      ^~~~~~~
    injector.c:778:2: error: impossible constraint in ‘asm’
    make: *** [Makefile:38: injector.o] Error 1
    2

Anyone got the text from behind the paywall?

The article completely misses the point of the idea of "general purpose".

"General purpose" means I can do what I want with it, as opposed to the manufacturer lets me do what they want me to do with it.

> You decide to try running with optimizations 1-128 enabled, and 129-256 disabled. That run fails. Now you know that one of the first 128 optimizations is to blame. You try again with 1-64 enabled, and 65-128 disabled, and that run passes. The bad optimization must be between 65 and 128. Continuing in this fashion—a binary search—you're able to locate the faulty optimization in just eight steps.

This doesn't work for the case where the failure(s) might be caused by a combination of a subset of the optimisations. That is,

1000 0100 0010 0001

all succeed, but

0101

fails.

A binary search is not possible for these more complex bugs. We had such cases in the reproducible builds project.

For the case where you can assume (subset A exhibits a failure => any superset of A exhibits a failure), then you can just go through all the options (in the OP's case 256) and switch them on, one at a time. Then the running time is 256, not 8.

For more complex cases where you can't assume even that, then you're stuck indeed with 2^256 test cases.

> The author continues: > > "Our view is that open-source software was never intended for cloud infrastructure companies to take and sell. That is not the original ethos of open source." > > which is a pretty astonishingly unsupported argument. Open source code has been incorporated into proprietary applications without giving back to the originating community since before the term open source even existed.

It depends on who you ask. The GNU AGPL certainly was intended not for cloud infrastructure companies to unconditionally take and sell. And as for non-cloud software, some projects like Wine used to be licensed permissively until they realised certain companies like Cedega [1] were making money off their work without contributing anything back, and switched to the LGPL instead.

Then OTOH you have permissive fundamentalists from parts of the US west coast that are already rich and whose livelihoods aren't dependent on money, and then of course are very happy to gather favour and reputation from giant tech monopolies by giving it all away for free with no pesky "reciprocal altruism" conditions for the lawyers to have to reason through.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedega_(software)

This is about as ridiculous as javascript making == not homomorphic for the reason of "making it easy for newcomers".

Please, predictability and consistency is what helps newcomers, not pandering to prejudiced intuitions.

They already "unleashed their evil" and it was shown to be pretty ineffective, lol

Human brains are even more closed, than closed source software. That was my point. With closed-source software, at least someone has access to the code and data.

And if they do that, it gets noticed and fixed. The process is imperfect of course, just like it is imperfect in human organisations.

I maintain that the core difference is the way these technologies are being deployed in a centralised fashion by human organisations, but the technology itself is no less capable than actual human decision-makers.

You're speculating wildly here. When have you ever seen a Ryanair or Easyjet plane full of Chinese tourists??