thesmokingman

@thesmokingman@programming.dev

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

thesmokingman,

It’s probably a good idea to have a stronger definition and mission. Here are a few scenarios you should consider.

  • FSF defines anything that’s not copyleft as hostile. That’s most companies. I personally don’t think I can tell my users what to do with my software other than remove my liability so I vehemently disagree with Stallman.
  • Mongo wrote the SSPL and MariaDB wrote the BSL. Both licenses are seen as regressions. I personally respect the MariaDB case and have been harassed by too many Mongo salespeople to say the same about them.
  • Platforms like AWS are the reason companies like CockroachDB and Elastic implemented restrictive licenses.
  • IBM has been gutting open source through its acquisition of Red Hat. This is a common story; Oracle has been screwing *nix longer.
  • Protecting trademarks causes a lot of consternation from users. The Rust Foundation is the most recent example of this I remember blowing up the FOSS community.

I like your idea a lot. I think it needs some definition to be very successful!

thesmokingman,

You can get this on a pin (not the seller; had problems with the seller so YMMV). The art itself is called “Flaisch Macht Flaisch.”

thesmokingman,

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Russell’s Teapot. If someone claims there is a teapot floating in space, cool, they need to prove its existence and the rest of us can go around as if one doesn’t exist. If someone claims there isn’t a teapot floating in space, now the burden of proof is on them. We can quickly exercise some critical thinking and realize that, while there might be a teapot in space someone brought with them and left, it’s not going to be beyond the asteroid belt.

Now do every belief system with empirical evidence. You can’t, primarily because belief in the logic used to prove that empirical evidence is the best evidence is itself a belief system. Changing any one of the axioms that underpin your methodology completely changes the methodology (eg parallel lines meet at infinity turns geometry into hyperbolic geometry). Furthermore, we can extend Gödel’s incompleteness theorems to any formal system, like you’re attempting to employ, and show that they can’t prove themselves.

In other words, we must take things on faith if we want to use logic and pull out statement related to logic like “burden of proof is on the positive.” You can believe whatever the fuck you want; you just can’t prove it and, in most metaphysical cases, you can’t disprove it either.

thesmokingman,

You’re very focused on religion and seem to be missing all of the points about logic.

not saying that … pretty agnostic

Cool, we’re on the same page.

If someone makes a claim… it needs… evidence

This is problematic without a rigorous definition of evidence. I’m assuming you mean something along the lines of repeatable and independently verifiable since you won’t take a claim at face value. If you’re going to rigorously define evidence, you’re going to need to create a system that can’t contradict itself. Per your quotes, either there is a ball in my hand or there isn’t.

This is called a consistent system. We agree on a set of axioms that we will achieve results from. If we have a consistent system and build a bunch of results on top of that, eventually we’ll run into things that are true but we cannot prove. We know this because of a famous result I’ve already mentioned. In other words, we must take central results on faith. A common one that, several decades ago, was met with ridicule because it was “so illogical” mathematicians had “suspend reality in order for it to make any sense” is the axiom of choice.

In other words, you can’t use logic and reason to say those that believe in religion are idiots because you have just as much proof as they do (just faith) if we accept the basic axioms that drive our logical system.

doesn’t exist because it doesn’t exist… isn’t circular logic

You’re conflating a tautology with circular reasoning. Circular reasoning boils down to “A because B; B because A;” and you’ve said “A because A” without any support for A. The lack of something in your hand is not necessary and sufficient to prove the ball’s existence. The only claim we can make is that your hand is empty.

Here is a metaphysical claim for you to chew on: it is possible to know whether or not it is possible to prove a claim.

thesmokingman, (edited )

Again, fundamental misunderstanding of Russell’s Teapot. You’re attempting to talk about proof, using the language of logic, to make sweeping claims that logic cannot make.

If you’re saying we can neither prove nor disprove the metaphysical, we’re on the same page.

If you’re saying the metaphysical doesn’t exist because no one has proved it and they have to prove it first, you don’t understand how logic, as we understand it today, works.

Edit: to highlight your issues a little, “it doesn’t exist because it doesn’t exist” isn’t logically sound. Unlike Russell’s Teapot, circular logic is an actual, provable fallacy rather than a rhetorical tool that is not a result of logic. More importantly, you’re depending on logic as a system of faith, just like religion, unless you’ve found some results that contradict Gödel and company. We’ve made all of it up and, with our understanding today, it is not objective.

thesmokingman,

I have attended or been involved with five different state universities and a few different community colleges. For computer science, aside from one glaring exception, the default has been some flavor of Linux. The earliest for me at a school was Fedora 7. I think they had been running Solaris in the late 90s; not sure what was before that.

The only glaring exception is Georgia Tech. Because of the spyware you have to install for tests, you have to use Windows. Windows in a VM can be flagged as cheating. I’m naming and shaming Georgia Tech because they push their online courses hard and then require an operating system that isn’t standard for all the other places I’ve been or audited courses.

thesmokingman,

If you want more grimdark and it has to be fantasy, check out Warhammer horror especially the vampire Genevieve. If you’re okay with grimdark science military science fiction, a good chunk of the Warhammer 40k and Horus Heresy lines will fit your bill.

I feel like Hobb is much lighter. For whatever reason I always think of Tad Williams and the Dragonborn Chair as connected to Hobb. I suspect it’s from the Legends anthology but they were only together in Legends II with a different Hobb trilogy setting and Otherland for Williams. Both are great starting points to find authors that have huge bodies of work that could hook you. They were how I found George RR Martin back in the early aughties.

thesmokingman,

The issue here is that Canonical pushed the snap install without warning about its reduced functionality. I don’t think highlighting a wildly different experience between a snap install and the Docker experience people are used to from the standard package install is “bashing it just because it’s popular to hate on snap.” For example, if you take a fresh Ubuntu server 22 install and use the snap package, not realizing that snaps have serious limitations which are not explicitly called out when the snap is offered in the installation process, you’re going to be confused unless you already have that knowledge. It also very helpfully masks everything so debugging is incredibly difficult if you are not already aware of the snap limitations.

thesmokingman,

It’s also offered as part of the installation process at least for Ubuntu server. If you don’t know better it bites you real quick.

thesmokingman,

This is slightly misleading. The Kansas flag, for example, does have human toes hidden by dirt rather than shoes (or shoes if we do not assume the farmer is standing in the plowed rut). I question the selection methodology. Since there are readily visible hooves on the KS flag as well as hidden human toes, should we assume that all of the yellow states also have human toes hidden? We can’t because of, for example, California, which has bear toes and no human.

thesmokingman,

No other company will contribute to LXD now. This is 100% a Canonical tool. Were the big clouds looking at deploying LXD so Canonical tried to block them?

thesmokingman,

In all fairness to Pocket Casts, the yearly cost in the US is $40, which is about the monthly cost of the three things you mentioned together. If your country gives you yearly Google Play Pass, YouTube Premium, and Spotify Premium for less than $40 US, that’s a fucking steal.

In all fuck you to Pocket Casts, Basic App functionality like folders shouldn’t be behind a subscription. I can understand a one-time unlock fee for app functionality or ongoing subscription costs to cover cloud storage and sync capabilities. I cannot fucking understand why folders would cost me $40 US a year.

thesmokingman,

You’re getting into very sketchy territory by saying a dev who is using a public GitHub repo to solve their problems needs to take it down because of how others are abusing it. Should the original dev be punished by their email provider because they shouldn’t be allowed to use this? Should anything that has potential harm be required to be a private repo? Who gets to decide all of that?

In the interest of specifics, can you point to where this specific list has done harm? I spent a fair amount of time looking around to make sure I wasn’t going out on a limb for someone with neutral views.

thesmokingman,

So you’re lumping this resource into a bucket with other resources that were malicious but you have no direct connection from this resource to harm you claim it causes? You’re saying a dev using this list to allow people to download free content but prune emails to save his bounce rate is doing bad things and needs to convert their FOSS use-case to yours?

Who gets to decide? You didn’t answer that and in the interest of good faith I’ll pull that one down as the important one since it follows from the argument I feel you’re making.

thesmokingman,

That’s not what this specific list is for.

I’m okay with people using burner email addresses to get my free content, I just need to be able to filter them out of my list so it doesn’t drive up bounces and hurt deliverability.

AWS SES, for example, is fucking rabid about bounces. Being able to filter out addresses you know are going to bounce is pretty important.

Can a list like this be used for anti-privacy measures? Absolutely! Does that mean we should never create lists like this? For me that depends on whether or not you think we should prevent encryption because bad actors can use it for bad purposes.

thesmokingman,

Do I use an aliasing service that allows me to change the account emails point to? Yes. Can I access those accounts with access to my email? Yes.

The issue here is that if you lose access to social network that logs you into those things, you lose the account. If you have an actual account, not delegated access, you can still access the account with the social account.

I’m struggling to find some good article examples because Google is rolling out inactive account deletion and that’s polluting my search results. So go test this out yourself: go try to change the account name/email, password, or MFA for any of those accounts you use social auth for. Try figure out how you would log into without that social account. Next do the same thing with an account you don’t use social auth for.

thesmokingman,

The biggest reason not to use a single account like this is that you lose everything if you lose the owning account. It’s bad advice to say you should absolutely do one or the other. It’s good advice to consider the risks.

thesmokingman,

Making the rich richer is what keeps most politicians in power. If you aren’t making lots of money you don’t matter.

thesmokingman,

Context for anyone also confused

Proton Mail CEO Calls New Address Verification Feature 'Blockchain in a Very Pure Form' (tech.slashdot.org)

Proton Mail, the leading privacy-focused email service, is making its first foray into blockchain technology with Key Transparency, which will allow users to verify email addresses. From a report: In an interview with Fortune, CEO and founder Andy Yen made clear that although the new feature uses blockchain, the key technology...

thesmokingman,

Did we read the same article? Emphasis mine.

Yen said Proton might move the feature to a public blockchain

I’m not interested until it’s public. Additionally, building out the chain then dropping it to rebuild a new public one is rewriting history, which violates the whole “immutable” part of “immutable ledger.”

thesmokingman,

But it’s not public. It’s a private blockchain. The immutable ledger aspect only matters if everyone can see the ledger. Otherwise we take at face value all of the things you said. Assume they run one node and that one node is compromised by a malicious actor. The system fails. Extend it to a limited number of nodes all controlled by SREs and assume an SRE is compromised (this kind of spearphishing is very common). The system fails again.

Sure, you can creatively figure out a way to manage the risks I’ve mentioned and others I haven’t thought of. The core issue, that it’s not public, still remains. If I’m supposed to trust Proton telling me the person I’m emailing is not the NSA pretending to be that person (as the Proton CEO suggested), I need to trust their verification system.

thesmokingman,

… which gives a timing attack and the ability for bad actors to impersonate someone. I agree with you that, once public, this is a good idea. You cannot convince me that this is a good idea if done privately because there is no way to trust but verify, especially in the highly sensitive contexts they want trust in.

If it’s not public, I won’t trust it. You trust it blindly because it’s in beta. We’re not going to come to an agreement over these mutually exclusive positions.

thesmokingman,

What about infrastructure costs? Are you comfortable making someone else pay for your access? What about the design and implementation of the API? Should all software be free?

Please note that I’m not trying to support this decision at all. I personally feel like API access is similar to SSO for enterprise stuff (check out sso.tax). I also feel like there should be some level of compensation and even profit so people can focus on building stuff like this. It’s really hard to define what that is, especially without transparent costs, which I don’t believe OpenSubtitles shares? Also they use super predatory ads so I don’t think they have any high ground to even suggest what I’m talking about.

thesmokingman,

I worked at one of the majors pre-Microsoft acquisition. “Highly skilled” is actually a relative comparison to the security teams at gaming companies, not an industry benchmark comparison. The bar for highly skilled plummets once you include things like social platforms, launchers, and telemetry.

thesmokingman,

I’m not really seeing much in the way of cybersecurity tools in this thread. These are all FOSS and usable without extra cost (although some have paid upgrades)

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • localhost
  • All magazines
    •
    Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #