The uneducated one here is the one who appears unaware that "installing software" was a thing long before app stores. Security is irrelevant to the meaning of the word, so continuing to go on about it only further devalues your point and does nothing to counter the OP's point.
So if you want to have a conversation about trusting curl and bash and random gists...
Like I said, I installed software in many ways back in the day. I typed it in; I loaded off cassette tape; I loaded off disk. One common denominator was loading from trusted sources. My Atari cartridges were store-bought and not homebrew. I went to B.Dalton mostly for the software, and got it shrinkwrapped from the publisher.
I had a number of classmates and colleagues who caught viruses and malware from loading and installing cracked software or untrusted programs... or even alleged porn, from shady sources. This is still a good way to get infected.
When I get on a friend's computer, I often have occasion to congratulate them for being uninfected, and it's nearly always because they "practiced good hygiene" in terms of loading only trusted software from trusted sources.
So you're correct, in that really nothing has changed. Back in 1983 you could certainly "sideload" crap from a pirate BBS and then suffer the consequences. And we all had choice words for people like that.
> polls also consistently show that Greenlanders do not want independence if the price is the collapse of the Greenlandic welfare state.
Even replacing independence with becoming part of the US - any one time payment couldn't ensure the continuation of the welfare state. That is, free healthcare, free higher education, access to social support, etc.
> > Even replacing independence with becoming part of the US - any one time payment couldn't ensure the continuation of the welfare state. That is, free healthcare, free higher education, access to social support, etc.
Yes if the one time payment is then invested in a big fund like Norway has, or considering the outcome that is at play here...more like California has with its CalPers
Of course it means that the actual money would be invested in US companies , hence subject to expropriation of the stock
And even the actual money if in dollars they can be taken away at any time
No, people can't just kick out an authoritarian dictator. Such rulers don't need democratic support to stay in power. Strong men only leave their palaces due to two reasons - death from old age or an even stronger power forcing them.
> No, people can't just kick out an authoritarian dictator.
If that was the case, the US wouldn't exist. Might want to brush up on american history.
> Such rulers don't need democratic support to stay in power.
They most certainly do. Once they lose it, they collapse internally. Read up on some history.
As I said, if maduro had lost the popular support, the US wouldn't have had to invade and kidnap maduro. The venezuelan people would have done so. The only time foreign intervention is required is when a significant portion of the populace supports the leader.
This is fundamentally incorrect. A dictator can oppress 90% of the people by just treating 10% of the population well, provided the 90% isn't allowed to heavily arm themselves anyway.
You jump from "some revolutions have happened" to "revolutions always happens and always succeed"...
By your logic why are there any tyrannies at all in the world? Do you really believe all governments are supported by their people and that oppression does not exist?
>> He says he could begin to block ad blockers in Firefox and estimates that’d bring in another $150 million, but he doesn’t want to do that. It feels off-mission.
> I read this as “I don't want to but I'll kill AdBlockers in Firefox for buckerinos ”.
I completely disagree. First of all the original quote is paraphrasing, so we don't know in which tone it was delivered, but calling something "off-mission" doesn't at all sound like "we'd do it for money" to me.
This is how I read it too, feels like a misinterpreted quote taken out of context. Everyone at Mozilla is probably well aware that removing adblockers would make them lose probably the majority of their users.
I think it's a reference to certain optimizations possible due to aliasing rules in Rust that are not possible (or maybe only "not straight forward", I'm not sure) in C. So a transpiled program while keeping its semantics might not still compile to equally optimized assembly.
IIRC C can do the same things with correct usage of `restrict`, but that's extremely difficult by hand. So difficult that LLVM's `restrict` support was very buggy when Rust first started using the capabilities. Those bugs got fixed, but it's still impractical to use in handwritten C.
His own party has a history of totalitarian initiatives. This is the "surveillance is freedom" party. He was surely getting pressured, but from within.
If you're going to run code without inspecting it though, the methods are similar. One case has https, the other a signature (which you're trusting due to obtaining it over https). You can't inspect it reliably only after getting hypothetically compromised.
I don't think that's true, most projects using uv don't rely on those tools at all, and you don't need to understand them. You just `uv sync` and do your work.
I'm just clarifying OP in response to parent comment that ignored the most important parts of OP's message. Your comment also seems to ignore the meat of OP's complaint. But maybe I'm interpreting OP's comment as "my use cases for these tools are complicated" because I, too, have complicated Python builds with exotic compiled dependencies.
I can no longer engage in (controversial) debates on other social medias, as responses often indicate a lack of understanding with the other person - they glance over the arguments, make a prejudice-based opinion, and then they respond to their straw man, often loaded with bad emotions. It's quite frustrating and as you say, sadly only solution is to disengage, but in so doing the polarisation only increases as dissenting opinions are removing themselves.
> but in so doing the polarization only increases as dissenting opinions are removing themselves.
It used to make sense when the internet was smaller but now? Not so much. Especially when the people running platforms/media, content moderators and influencers explicitly don't care about the truth. You're not just fighting some dummy posting a comment.
The only positive thing I've seen in the last decade to address this was Community Notes on X.
Agree, with current dynamics, attempting to "correct" discourse as a user is like attempting to correct law in a society as a citizen. The impact moderation/police have is far too large for the users/citizens to really matter much.
I feel ya. It is true on hn too sadly. There are certain subjects that trigger people to fall into a rhetoric mode of clapbacks and us vs them mindset. Eg the individual disappears replaced by some form of ideology. It isnt a left right up down thing but a phenomenon of hyper polarization. It is especially scary to see it in person. Mobs are a dangerous thing.
It's super hard to have good faith discussions on the internet for years now. When someone has different opinions, those opinions are associated with certain groups (liberals, conservatives, etc). And it's very easy to demonize other groups, because social media shows curated content with extremely idiotic and malicious people in that group. Even if we have only slightly biased opinions, the algorithm knows watching content which follow your existing opinions are super engaging. We can't resist the satisfaction and dopamine hit of finding out our opinion is right. Attacking obviously wrong people from a moral high ground without risking being attacked by other people is also really attractive. After consuming such content for a long time, we come to see other groups as nothing but evil, and it makes it very difficult to have good faith conversations.
