throwaway82652

8 ms·

1.
by throwaway82652 4y ago
No? I don't know where you got that from.
2.
by throwaway82652 4y ago
You should be implementing a borrow checker or something like it. It's irresponsible not to do that. I'm serious about this. We know how to totally stop most use-after-free bugs during static analysis now, this is a tool that can
3.
by throwaway82652 4y ago
>You just need ANY other activity in order to get lost in the crowd And that's irrelevant because these tools are explicitly built for criminals to use them. I'm actually quoting what the designers of these systems have said, t
4.
by throwaway82652 4y ago
If there is another forum I would hope similar comments are also downvoted or deleted there because it's completely unrelated to the discussion, and you're also taking the opportunity to take cheap political shots at easy targets.
5.
by throwaway82652 4y ago
Even if you aren't a criminal, the fact is that privacy tools of this nature are explicitly relying on having enough volume of criminals and other illicit users to provide cover for you. This is what they're designed to do, the de
6.
by throwaway82652 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monero#Illicit_use
7.
by throwaway82652 4y ago
That comment is definitely out of line and trolling, but the author's attitude towards safety and security is still incredibly bad. Two wrongs don't make a right. I'm dismayed to see more new languages copying the safety and
8.
by throwaway82652 4y ago
>they would be laughed out. No they wouldn't because almost all of those properties are actually desirable, and the only real achievement of ENS is to approximate all of that. Remember that the whole reason you're even using a
9.
by throwaway82652 4y ago
There's no name calling, "stupid" is the exact word you used. I'm stupider than a lawyer when it comes to all the details of contract law, because I didn't study it as much as they do. If you aren't a lawyer, t
10.
by throwaway82652 4y ago
>Pot, meet kettle. No, this is incredibly wrong. The source here is me. You can choose to not believe me, but it's a source. I'm sorry but I just don't illegally carry a tape recorder into every meeting I go to just to pro
11.
by throwaway82652 4y ago
>If I as a developer want to license my code a certain way (and enforce that license in a certain way) what authority do these lawyers have to tell me I'm "stupid". Are you willing to represent yourself in court? If the an
12.
by throwaway82652 4y ago
It's the same kind of unsourced low-information content focused on personal grievances that you would find in an angry twitter or 4chan comment. It's just intellectually lazy and bad writing, this person is smart enough not to do
13.
by throwaway82652 4y ago
From the lawyers I've spoken to about this, Linus's view on the GPL and the chosen enforcement strategy has long been known to be nonsense. But nothing will change as long as the kernel developers are intentionally burying their h
14.
by throwaway82652 4y ago
You can just look up the Linux Foundation's tax statements, they're publicly available. Bryan Lunduke's recent writings are a bad source, they consist almost entirely of reactionary trolling. No idea why he gets any readershi
15.
by throwaway82652 4y ago
Use cmake-gui and it lists all the options for you. Or for the manual method, search in the project's cmake sources for lines starting with "option(".
16.
by throwaway82652 4y ago
I'm sorry but absolutely none of those applications need blockchains or even benefit from them at all. If you want to discuss this I could go into extreme detail why that's the case. I can understand being excited about the promis
17.
by throwaway82652 4y ago
>5. automake documentation discourages developers from globbing source files in source directories, and insists they list them individually. It's silly and just results in needless running of configure. No it's not silly, reali
18.
by throwaway82652 4y ago
>take personal offense to me even daring to suggest that blockchain technology isn't completely useless Because it is actually useless. I've seen tons of people trying to explain the current state of it and a lot of them do the
19.
by throwaway82652 4y ago
It doesn't really make sense to put your confidence in something questionable because something else happens to be bad. I get that you probably have a better explanation but this comment isn't explaining it and instead is just tak
20.
by throwaway82652 4y ago
>Completely disregarding any advances in cryptography or consensus Because those advances exist in spite of blockchains. I wish blockchains were a useful technology, but they actually aren't. I've seen zero advances in distribu
21.
by throwaway82652 4y ago
In some aspects it does, for example a lot of Gnome apps have very minimal designs. That's ok for individual apps. The problem is, you can't really apply that to a chat tool that needs to be used by everyone in a large community.
22.
by throwaway82652 4y ago
>I think IRC's lack of features is actually an advantage and not a disadvantage. It's an advantage in the sense that if you want those features, you get to implement them yourself in a very complex series of IRC bots and server
23.
by throwaway82652 4y ago
In this comment, it appears you took the word "expert" and defined it to mean "people who aren't actually experts" and then used that to dismiss them. I hope you can understand this isn't a useful way to approa
24.
by throwaway82652 4y ago
No, it's not even close to that. Analogies aren't that good of a tool to use here.
25.
by throwaway82652 4y ago
>No, it isn't. Pulseaudio is based on a push model, which is completely broken. These two statements are both very wrong. The push model is absolutely not broken, it's actually better for media players, networked sound and othe
26.
by throwaway82652 4y ago
>Can someone explain to me what pipewire's goal is? to be a better pulseaudio? Yes, and also the goal is to support video in addition to audio. >if so, in what way is it trying to be better? Well in addition to supporting video,
27.
by throwaway82652 4y ago
Not really, the question is how the organization is classified. Linux Foundation is a 501(c)(6) so they can sponsor some people but it's only for the purposes of furthering "common business interests" and not for profit.
28.
by throwaway82652 4y ago
That's an extremely small percentage, most Linux developers aren't sponsored by the Linux Foundation. The majority of their expenses go towards events and training.
29.
by throwaway82652 4y ago
I have no idea which press release you're talking about, every search I did on the subject turned up this news article or another one with very similar content, where there's no official press release: https://www.there
30.
by throwaway82652 4y ago
If your distribution is already content to ignore any efforts at standardization in favor of "unique aspects" then I don't see what the problem is. You can go about your business and ignore systemd, or choose to adopt it on

More ›