This is absolutely not enough against targeted attacks. It will be harder to detect you but once they do, Firefox (which Tor is based on) is a lot more vulnerable than Chrome.
Same for Android, the locked bootloader and such can be helpful in this situation.
I think most people focus on bringing back far-right people to the platform, making the application inaccessible to logged out users and the failed attempts at Twitter Premium or whatever it's being called.
for me it’s the vocal Twitter users who say with a straight face that it’s the “town square” and who talk about “the global conversation” and just won’t accept that only a vast minority of their town or globe actually post on it or participate in the way they’re suggesting.
the whole platform — users and owners — are just incredibly full of themselves in an _annoying_ way.
i remember i think back when jack dorsey stepped down and parag agrawal was slated to be the next ceo all of HN was doing nothing but talking about how the only viable path for twitter was to put the entire thing behind a subscription because there was too much garbage.
now that elon is actually instating a paywall (that isn’t compulsory, and still lets you use it for free) all of HN seems to be thinking it’s the wrong decision.
i’d understand if something substantially happened in the intervening time period to give you the impression the subscription model was NOT the way to go, but nothing of the sorts has actually happened at all.
while it’s better than most sites, the groupthink on HN is insane.
also - i might be wrong if dorsey stepping down was the time when everyone was saying this, but i do remember it very clearly, and i only joined in 2020.
I really dislike this argument, it sounds so balanced but it’s disingenuous. Twitter has (had) rules. Nothing to do with political slant. It’s just there are extremes on the right that seem to cross those rules. Correlation is not causation.
My office is half an hour by foot from my house and yet I prefer to work from home exactly for this reason. Maybe in America where the commute can become ridiculous quickly it's a problem but here I just take an e-scooter if I don't want to walk.
A better office would certainly make me come to the office more. But to be fair, even the CEO doesn't have his own office currently so I don't expect any of us to get one soon.
I don't think the person was important but the employer might. It seems to be IBM which is not surprising I guess, although I'd hoped that RedHat would influence how they work with open source somehow.
Yes, Plan 9 made some bad choices in retrospect, at least in my opinion. The big dependency on the mouse is one of them but also assuming people will be in managed networks.
When I wrote it, from the options you mentioned, only Ubuntu phone existed and it was after Canonical abandoned it. So in 2019 it really felt like Android was the only option.
Please don't try to delude people by changing the definition of open source. While sadly Open Source Initiative were not able to get the trademark for open source, the de-facto definition of open source is practically the same as free software.
Dragonfly is source available which is a completely different thing.
> Please don't try to delude people by changing the definition of open source.
Don't blame it on me, that ship has sailed over two decades ago. That's why RMS didn't like the term in the first place. Even if I disagree with RMS on most things, I have to admit I'm 100% with him on this one. It's almost as if the term was coined to create this kind of confusion.
In my opinion, the mental gymnastics around the definition of "open source" led to abominations like CDDL, which was carefully and explicitly designed to make it impossible/impractical/illegal to properly integrate ZFS or DTrace with Linux. CDDL is perfectly "open source" by definition, but its primary purpose was to lock people out of actually using software licensed under it, unless they happen to be running Solaris.
In all this mess, I actually think BSL is cool. It's a legally binding vow to actually make a particular release free (as in freedom) down the line. They could have kept it proprietary (which I think is totally fair), or made vague promises instead.
> but its primary purpose was to lock people out of actually using software licensed under it, unless they happen to be running Solaris.
And yet here we are, with DTrace (CDDL) shipping in macOS, ZFS having shipped in OS X for several releases, and FreeBSD shipping both. Even Windows (on the "insider" builds) has DTrace [1] _shipped by Microsoft_.
That makes any argument that you can't use any of this stuff unless using Solaris looking rather... wrong - and the idea that Sun lawyers would have overlooked FreeBSD, macOS or Windows if the goal were to restrict the software to be used in Solaris is laughable.
In the case of CDDL specifically, even RMS [2] refers to it as a "free software license", though not one which is GPL-compatible.
> And yet here we are, with DTrace (CDDL) shipping in macOS, ZFS having shipped in OS X for several releases, and FreeBSD shipping both. Even Windows (on the "insider" builds) has DTrace [1] _shipped by Microsoft_.
That's why I personally strongly prefer BSD systems (OpenBSD in particular) and permissively-licensed software.
> That makes any argument that you can't use any of this stuff unless using Solaris looking rather... wrong
The intent was to lock out Linux specifically, otherwise they would've used a more restrictive license.
> [...] and the idea that Sun lawyers would have overlooked [...]
You're not violating the CDDL by linking it with GPL-licensed software, you're violating the GPL. Which goes to show just how devious that move was: even if Sun went belly up with no lawyers left to lift a finger, relicensing Linux with a CDDL linking exception would still be a massive clusterfuck. So Ubuntu & whoever else is shipping zfs.ko is risking getting sued by any of the half a million people who have their code in the kernel.
> In the case of CDDL specifically, even RMS [2] refers to it as a "free software license", though not one which is GPL-compatible.
You can also license your software even more permissively, but hold a patent on it, and not grant a patent license to your users. It would technically be free, but still released with an intent of restricting the freedom of certain users.
As has been discussed many times on HN before[0], your read of history here is just wrong: we at Sun certainly did not think that Linux would let their own read of the GPL prevent them from integrating DTrace. More generally, other faults aside, Sun was emphatically not "devious"; as I have quipped in the past, one of Sun's greatest strengths was that it was insufficiently organized to be evil.
I think the parallels to free software are markedly correct. They're just words after all. It will forever be used in ways incompatible with the OSI definition, showing up after every misuse to correct folks isn't helpful.
This is a pretty terrible comparison, suitable for those X-vs-Y websites. While on paper Go and Java have a lot in common, in practice their philosophies differs enough to produce different enough languages.
I've used both Java and Go and I can tell you, there is no right or wrong but they differ a lot in their ecosystem, tooling and in design patterns. I don't see myself going back to Java because of the virtual threads.
For sure it’s an intentional strategy to keep books cheap. And indirectly also to prevent any competitors from selling the same books at a higher price.
