twentydollars

6 ms·

1.
by twentydollars 5y ago
You can't use Oculus products now without a Facebook account?
2.
by twentydollars 6y ago
The frustration is fair and understandable, but his characterization of Rust is wrong IMO. Side note, has anyone read a Java textbook? They are notable for not being able to go more than a page without extolling Java's virtues in a way
3.
by twentydollars 6y ago
hmmm, this is your desktop or a server?
4.
by twentydollars 6y ago
It was a pun on "What's cracking?"
5.
by twentydollars 6y ago
It was a joke, like "What's cracking?"
6.
by twentydollars 6y ago
> I recognize they have a right to do it, but I have a right to make noise about it and criticize them. Nobody suggested otherwise, and your statement that "you're not interested in free speech unless you're willing to def
7.
by twentydollars 6y ago
Don't be ridiculous. There are thousands of competing communications providers. If you want to share content that harms society or harms the platforms themselves then you might just have to do it outside of Facebook or Twitter.
8.
by twentydollars 6y ago
> A domain and VPS are simply not a viable substitute for access to mainstream social networks; to claim otherwise is disingenuous. Nobody is claiming this. That's the whole idea of the "Freedom of reach" thing... Why shou
9.
by twentydollars 6y ago
It's not a non sequitur. Freedom of speech is not the same thing as a (nonexistent) right to post whatever you want on a private platform regardless of the consequences for others or for the platform itself. I never said it's not
10.
by twentydollars 6y ago
So newspapers should be compelled to print every letter they receive?
11.
by twentydollars 6y ago
They're private platforms. You can send those links via many other routes which would be legally protected speech.
12.
by twentydollars 6y ago
They're not banning all allegations of fraud. They're blocking a specific set of claims that have been shown to be false, for instance that Donald Trump won the 2020 US election.
13.
by twentydollars 6y ago
> IMHO you're not interested in free speech unless you're willing to defend speech you find repugnant. Defending speech I find repugnant is not the same thing as defending a nonexistent right to post lies on Youtube. Host the l
14.
by twentydollars 6y ago
> “A group of unknown people at a technology corporation should be the ultimate authority on what I’m allowed to say, read, or share with my friends.” Literally nobody is suggesting this. It's about freedom of Reach, not freedom of
15.
by twentydollars 6y ago
No, you're misinformed. The (Federal) Supreme Court rejected the Pennsylvania case unanimously.
16.
by twentydollars 6y ago
Ah, my bad. The REFERENCE implementation, written in Python, which was supposed to be supplanted by a faster, better implementation years ago, now has 10x less bugs.
17.
by twentydollars 6y ago
> Sorry, you're complaining that we... did the thing you want us to do? But it took longer than you wanted? My heart bleeds. Wasn't complaining. I don't use Matrix. > Meanwhile, portable identities are also in active de
18.
by twentydollars 6y ago
> Also isn't E2EE new to Matrix? It was turned on by default in May of 2020. It was available before then. > I don't have any fear of Moxie turning and pushing backdoor keys into everyone's app. He could, though, and yo
19.
by twentydollars 6y ago
It's not decentralized because it's federated, client-server chat software. This is more decentralized than Discord or what-have-you, but it requires reliance on multiple centralized internet services and authorities, as I outline
20.
by twentydollars 6y ago
> Why is it not possible for GNUnet to / why doesn't GNUnet offer a high-level API that could be consumed by every-day apps and that stays stable across releases? This isn't possible because GNUnet does not work, and AFAIC
21.
by twentydollars 6y ago
A lot of Linux-y people, including myself, reject Matrix. It's not the solution it claims to be. I could write a list of criticisms of Matrix's software products, organization, and track record, but the main problem is that we wan
22.
by twentydollars 6y ago
You said "they all spy", implying generic Linux. You have been called out for multiple falsehoods in your comments here and you've still failed to provide any evidence.
23.
by twentydollars 6y ago
Linux operating systems don't spy on their users. This is false. Stop repeating misinformation. The Ubuntu Amazon fiasco is, if anything, evidence of extreme resistance to this kind of thing. The Linux community rejected Canonical&#x27
24.
by twentydollars 6y ago
This is a lie.
25.
by twentydollars 6y ago
So... No, this has never happened on Ubuntu.
26.
by twentydollars 6y ago
Could you elaborate in plain English? Your comment makes no sense to me.
27.
by twentydollars 6y ago
I guess I was asking pmoriarty. It's not my ideal. Just trying to understand their reasoning.
28.
by twentydollars 6y ago
So the ideal would be to have the execution engine written in elisp (or the elisp replacement)?
29.
by twentydollars 6y ago
There's no such thing as "lisp all the way down" unless you're running a lisp machine. Common Lisp, e.g. SBCL, is written in C. So I'd say Emacs already is almost "Lisp all the way down" in any meaningful
30.
by twentydollars 6y ago
GNU Emacs is the only active Emacs. Resurrecting one of those old forks like xemacs isn't really an option. Also replacing Elisp with CL isn't a good idea. There's very little actual reward on that investment. See https:&#x2

More ›