So do you actually agree or disagree that there's something wrong with npm? It reads as if you were playing both sides, just to land on blaming the individual each time.
Even if this was actually some weirdly written plea to shared responsibility, surely it makes sense that in a hierarchy, one would proritize trying to fix things upstream closer to the root, rather than downstream closer to the leaves, doesn't it?
> This is wildly circular logic!
They're very clearly implying a semantic disagreement there, not making a logical mistake.
I can’t speak for majormajor but I thought the language was kind of funny. “The problem is an ecosystem that allows packages to run arbitrary code silently” is an odd statement because for many people that’s kind of what a package manager does.
> one would proritize trying to fix things upstream closer to the root
One should prioritize fixing things one is responsible for. If you make a commitment to protect your user’s data, then you take responsibility for the tools you use, and how you use them.
Whether or not you – or someone else – should fix those tools upstream, is a separate issue to be solved later. First solve the problems that are your responsibility. Then worry about everyone else.
The npm ecosystem has many security issues but they are all mitigatable.
I don't know man, I think people disappove of voting fraud and sockpuppeting rather unilaterally.
> forcing digital id are a problem... unless our guys are in power.
Digital government ID based mandatory auth, properly implemented or not (read: anon via zk vs. tracking), does not "properly remediate" [0] this issue. You'd limit identity forgery to those who administrate identities in the first place.
[0] if that is even possible, which I find questionable
I read their comment a bit differently; I interpreted what they wrote as a combination of a number of things:
- what you're saying: that people will happily distort the meaning of words and events given enough desperation and/or interest in doing so - i agree
- that people do this commonly with these two topics: i do not see that at all, not from this framing at least - i think if people asked themselves if they disapprove of these things, they'd generally say yes. i think people generally do genuinely believe they are against these.
- that people are doing this maliciously (~ this is exclusively or near exclusively interest driven rather than desperation): i just plain don't think so. i think those who suspect election fraud do by and large legitimately believe it happened or happens. same for your example.
And so what I was more pushing back on was #2 and #3. Like it's not that I don't think the phenomenon of semantic distortion isn't real, I just find focusing on it and framing things around it this way in this context is reductive and asinine, and it overplays it; it implies en-masse intentional malice without evidence. I could do this to their comment just as easily: I could start opining about how they're intentionally publishing divisive ragebait, when maybe they 100% just fully believe what they wrote and have just reached the (a?) boiling point after reading the above article and vented. I cannot actually know.
Long story short, yeah, people do be acting ill faith from time to time, but hyperfocusing on that doesn't make anyone's day better, nor does it help against it. It just plays right into it. That's the whole problem with it in the first place, it's anti-social. I'm pretty sure they could have picked a less instigating framing at least - your comment delivers the same idea but in a much less inflammatory manner, for example.
"Hard work" is the worst way to make money at scale, so that argument rings more than just a little hollow, especially when defending access control based moneymaking.
> I've never understood the initial arguments about Bitcoin, no matter how many times they've been explained to me.
This may not help much, but it's really a (self-)governance thing. That's why they start their article like so:
> I donated to Gary Johnson as a starry-eyed libertarian. On top of being a staunch Randian, I was into computer programming, so crypto was a natural fit for me. The cypherpunk ethos attracted me. (...) Being able to walk across the border with a billion dollars in your head is and always will be a powerful idea to me.
It is also why you keep hearing about crypto transactions being primarily used for illegal stuff. Just like with the uber-free-speech p2p platforms, it primaily benefits those who'd be otherwise hampered. Who, contrary to the usual talking points, are usually not actually so innocent or respectable.
But then we do keep sliding back, so maybe it's only a matter of time the proportions shift, and the claims of these technologies' justness stop being so false and hollow. And maybe these events and processes are further not actually uncorrelated. Trust is at an all time low and dwindling, after all.
I've recently used Bitcoin to pay for several legitimate items because the fiat financial system just decided not to let me pay with my debit card, for no apparent reason.
> Enforcing the law is not anti-immigramt insanity.
Interesting you mention that, a few threads ago you were adamant that the EU wanting to enforce their speech laws on Twitter was 100% anti-free-speech insanity though.
It would seem that for you the insanity of the sheer fact of enforcement (since you clearly weren't talking about the character of enforcement) depends on your underlying sentiment on the given topic. Is that really intentional on your part? Sounds a bit perilous to me reasoning wise, if so.
Or did you simply change your mind since our last discussion?
There is a difference between the US enforcing visas within the borders of the country and the EU using their laws to affect an American website, allow slurping up data of Americans living in America outside of the EU's jurisduction. America already went to war to stop Europe from ruling over us. The legality of operating every jurisdiction is going to be more complicated due to having to deal with unreasonable demands of foriegn countries or contradicting laws. It's much more complicated than a country enforcing who can be within their borders with visas where the US has clear jurisdiction. If you were to ask me if I think X should respect US law like the DMCA I would say they should absolutely be following US law.
So if Twitter complied with the demands such that flagged EU-illegal content still remains available to non-EU (e.g. US) visitors, thus not removing anything on the demands of a foreign jurisdiction, in your eyes it would suddenly no longer be a case of "anti-free-speech insanity"?
Cause the whole "they're ordering around an American company" defense falls apart pretty quickly when said American company also operates (read: is accessible from) within EU borders, and in general can be used by citizens of EU member states (independent of their location).
I believe that would be a reasonable solution, but at the same time I would feel bad that the EU has elected people to do such a thing to their people, but ultimately it's not my problem that they got into this state and have a worse version of X.
I recently installed NT4 (including Plus!) in an emulator with a VESA video driver, and was greatly surprised when about half of the icons that I thought of as “Windows 2000” (including the memorable “My Computer” one with the bulbous sky-blue screen) turned out to be available even there, provided a non-indexed mode. The rest were the more familliar 16-color-compatible 95/NT4 ones, making for an incongruous result overall. I guess what I want to say is that 16-color compatibility is a large part of the 95/NT4 look from which 2000 very carefully departed.
More like 6.2+ MB, or at least I'd sure hope that a FHD resolution is paired with at least a 24 bit (8 bpc) SDR color. And then there's the triple buffered vsync at play, so it's really more like 18.6+ MB.
reply