In another post you’re actively looking at purchasing GPS systems. The satellites you’re sending info to are not available to dissect and I highly doubt the firmware of the devices you’re looking at is publicly available much less libre. Your trolling is not internally consistent so it’s clear you don’t have any clue what you’re on about. Good luck with that.

The claim is that audio and video are E2EE. I’m not sure how you’re unable to disprove that using the linked code, audit report, and COTS debugging tools. Can you expand on that? I see a lot of FUD without anything more than “they’re not libre” which, again, doesn’t do a great job of selling your point.

Interesting. I was able to access the linked whitepaper and repositories without trouble and the 3rd party stuff too. Do you have local config preventing you from downloading the source code to review?

While I can respect your distaste for non-libre software, you’ll need to back up the malware claim. There are real security concerns out there in common non-libre; labeling things that are not libre as malware solely because they are not libre muddies the waters and makes your message much less palatable.

The article explains why this is risky. Were I in possession of a bionic limb, I personally couldn’t afford to replace it so it wouldn’t be worth the risk.

Once companies have branded their products, tidily and permanently painting over or erasing the logos can be challenging and expensive. Generally, a clinician will offer to customize a limb’s socket (the part that covers the residual limb). But many prosthetics techs are hesitant to alter bionic parts. Damage the product while customizing it, Dez Joseph, a prosthetist and orthotist in New York City, told me, and that could invalidate the warranty on a device that can cost as much as or more than a Jaguar.

Insurance also won’t cover the work, because it’s considered cosmetic, Joseph said. And because getting insurance approval for prosthetics can already be a battle, for some people professional customization is effectively impossible. Certain companies, such as Ottobock, offer gloves made to resemble hands (complete with wrinkles), which conceal any labeling, but Schneider and Joseph both told me that these covers can hinder some of the device’s efficacy.

Boeing execs said they held nothing back. The union members took that to be threatening. I genuinely wonder how much profit was actually reserved and how much executive comp is still available to drop into the pool. To me, “holding nothing back” means the company genuinely cannot to fund anything else without going into the red. Holding nothing back means fat was cut, executive pay was reduced, and shareholders understand their dividends are gone because the people that make them money need to get some too. Holding nothing back means some rainy day assets are sold and corporate, non-union members experience some austerity (granted you have to remain competitive so as to not lose your value creators so you can’t cut everything or they’d leave; executives are almost never value creators so they can have austerity measures). Holding nothing back means jobs could be cut if more hardship appears.

Something tells me Boeing was holding stuff back with that offer. It could be all the deferred stock executives have or the lack of shareholder expectation management. Not sure! We’ll never know.

You said

This proposal is a new iteration of the language and standard library. It would provide safe language features for preventing such problems existing in the first place.

Either it’s a draft or it’s a new iteration of the language. Can’t be both.

Right now, we have to compile the compiler for this ourselves. Pardon my skepticism; I’m not sure this is mature enough.

Edit: I’m talking about the project not the idea. Sean Baxter has shown up everywhere for awhile talking about this. I think his idea has a ton of maturity. I don’t know that the project itself has enough maturity to mainline yet.

Where does the document number come from? I can’t find anything about the SG or linked orgs that defines a sequence.

Unless you’re at the top, touring and merch have always been the money-makers. Can you provide evidence of this flip? Speaking from 20+ yr in DIY music, I’ve never known a band who wasn’t in big box stores to make anything approaching stable money off records and the bands I know in big box stores aren’t big enough to make much at all off 10% to 20% of a low volume of sales. Bands that are big enough to sell out a stadium are above my scope so I can only guess, say, Metallica made enough off record sales to do dumb shit like sue Napster.

On the backend I have yet to see a valid reason other than greed for a ticket servicer or artist to gouge prices as high as they go. Ticketmaster has openly talked about how they happily hide higher prices behind service fees for artists too afraid to openly gouge and secretly colludes with artists.

I don’t have the ability to listen to a video right now

This is the same as reading a clickbait headline and going off in the wrong direction. Your point is contradicted in the summary of the video and skimming the summary highlights all the things you would need to know.

“Patent troll” and “required actions to preserve trademarks” are two totally different things. The former is objectively bad in all ways. The second is explainable if there truly is a trademark and said gear infringes on the trademark and may be excusable if the Linux Foundation is forced to act to preserve their branding (trademark law is weird). It’s even more explainable if this is a shitty auto filter some paralegal had to build without any technical review because IP law firms are hot fucking mess. I’m also very curious to see the original graphics which I couldn’t find on Mastodon. If they are completely unrelated and there was an explicit action by someone who knew better, the explanation provides no excuse.

Attacking any company because the trademark process is stupid doesn’t accomplish much more than attacking someone paying taxes for participating in capitalism.

Swartz wasn’t involved in the origins of Reddit. He got involved when Y Combinator combined his company with Reddit (something along those lines?). He was not an actual founder, just an early influencer. In many ways, decoupling him from the shitshow that Ohanian and Huffman have engendered is a good thing.

This is very similar to the argument of Musk being a founder of Tesla.