flumpcakes

7 ms·

1.
by flumpcakes 17d ago
Death-frightening scion capable of seeing beyond the illusionary world before our eyes John Carmack?
2.
by flumpcakes 19d ago
You have a very nuanced take that I broadly agree with. I would add that they were probably targeted for political reasons, it's not like the current administration is going out of their way to tackle right wing "terrorism".
3.
by flumpcakes 19d ago
Is it truly anyone, or only anyone that politically aligns with them?
4.
by flumpcakes 2mo ago
I don't understand your comment - the social norms I refer to are paying tax, sending your children to school, integrating with the local community, living in areas/accommodation that is legal/not transitory. It can be argued
5.
by flumpcakes 2mo ago
I think DHH's comments are pretty mild given the subject. However, I think it is how he frames his comments that cause offensive - lumping a (potentially) problematic (arguably) ethnic group of people in with animal control...
6.
by flumpcakes 2mo ago
I think DHH's opinion is a very common sentiment in Europe. "Gypsies" are a very European thing. I wonder if there's anything similar in the US? For context for US readers; they generally exist outside of the usual socia
7.
by flumpcakes 2mo ago
I thought it was very obvious throughout the video what was happening... Rust has compile time checks to enforce some safety. In comparison Fil-C is a lot more memory safe, it's more comparable to being a software implementation of CHE
8.
by flumpcakes 2mo ago
I think you are concentrating on 'free' too much here. It's not about giving away resources, it's about serving the user. 1. No, a kiosk shouldn't be hooked up to some crime database, it should function exactly as e
9.
by flumpcakes 2mo ago
I think it was trying to find a moral standard that wasn't being set by established places. I think it was showing a level of self-reflection (going through a process of finding your set of principals after leaving an established faith
10.
by flumpcakes 2mo ago
There are no 'unsafe' blocks in Fil-C. I think you trying to conflate 'unsafe blocks' with the fact that there might be compiler errors which might break 'safety'? Which is equally true in any system including
11.
by flumpcakes 2mo ago
I think you should watch the linked presentation, it will show how it is "safer" than rust. Unfortunately there are performance implications, but fil-c seems fast enough to go into production for many workloads and surprisingly ne
12.
by flumpcakes 2mo ago
I can't believe these comments - passkeys are pretty easy to understand and most platforms allow you to add multiple. Not enough for truly one-passkey-per-device, but if you use a password manager that syncs passkeys, or hardware passk
13.
by flumpcakes 2mo ago
US politics is cooked. I wonder if polymarket will start taking bets on mid-terms being canceled.
14.
by flumpcakes 2mo ago
That video is embarrassing. Theo clearly doesn't know what he is talking about at points, and is having a massive crash out for really no reason.
15.
by flumpcakes 2mo ago
I agree with your sentiment completely. I think there's nuance that a lot of people don't bother with because of tribalism but your take is the one I most align with in this instance. Children do need protecting, I grew up with th
16.
by flumpcakes 2mo ago
It doesn't need to expose something as new to point out a causal link? Someone saying that work-life balance means all work and no life, and then producing substandard quality at said work seems worth pointing out. A trillion dollar co
17.
by flumpcakes 2mo ago
> Nothing was ever said about the addictive design of mainstream TV - because then the rulers controlled the message being streamed into the brains of the population. More outlandish conspiracy theories on hackernews... You are in fact w
18.
by flumpcakes 2mo ago
Any evidence what so ever for the "mass control" claim? I do not want E2E comms broken, but these posts on hackernews always bring out such outlandish claims. You can't be applying the "mass control" claim for the a
19.
by flumpcakes 2mo ago
This is extending something that came into affect in 2011.
20.
by flumpcakes 2mo ago
It already exists. Most CSAM tools are checking against a hash database. Why would you NOT want this to exist? This seems the only method to not raise false positives.
21.
by flumpcakes 2mo ago
> Blackboxes which scan your messages and photos for anything 3rd party want with undisclosed criteria. Well the criteria is CSAM? Do you have any evidence that these systems have been used to imprison someone that wasn't CSAM relat
22.
by flumpcakes 2mo ago
This is extending an existing law that expired. Really you should have felt betrayed back in 2011. This isn't Chat Control 2.0 - which is the thing that has been getting attention for the last few years. E2E encryption should not be br
23.
by flumpcakes 2mo ago
I assume those 400-page EULAs blast away any 'strict restrictions'.
24.
by flumpcakes 2mo ago
The most obvious answer: to stop CSAM being shared on large platforms. Cloudflare has a tool that does it for some of their services.
25.
by flumpcakes 2mo ago
Why is it currently illegal? If I have a service that let's users communicate, why is it illegal to look through those communications? (especially after they've signed my 400 page EULA). It would make moderation impossible otherwi
26.
by flumpcakes 2mo ago
> Then forced through through some obscure mechanism bypassing It was extending a recently expired law that has existed since 2011. I don't think your comment is reflecting on what has actually happened. "Chat Control" as
27.
by flumpcakes 2mo ago
> Why do EU citizens tolerate this? Some EU citizens want it? You'd be surprised on the views of some people.
28.
by flumpcakes 2mo ago
Perhaps the article is biased. The simple fact is that a law that existed since 2011 and expired in April is now back in effect. So we are back where we were on February. I don't remember moving from an anti-democratic hell scape to se
29.
by flumpcakes 2mo ago
Who is they? These pithy remarks don't really extend the debate or have any nuance - they just sound conspiratorial. There are plenty of reasons to "scan" communications. There are plenty of reasons to have limits on communic
30.
by flumpcakes 2mo ago
Isn't this something they already do? I would be utterly shocked if facebook et al. were not scanning all of your messages (either in transit or at terminus to get around 'E2E' claims).

More ›