skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> You want to check the validity of a commit at the moment you use it, not the moment the commit was made

If you received the repo before the key expired, you can still trust the signature even if the key has since expired, as the key was valid at that time the repo was signed.

> imagine I put up a fake tree, with a fake commit with you as an author but made with a fake key that already expired

Yes, you cant trust a key after after it's expiration. See bottom of https://www.kernel.org/signature.html for how the kernel.org folks handled this in 2011. Once they re-signed the release, it's safe to trust the compromised key within that release.

> I don't understand what's the link with the rest of the discussion

We're discussing complexity of pgp adoption, security cards simplify the usage of pgp, thought it was relevant.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Viruses jumping from animals to humans is a very well-established theory. What makes this virus so different that you make the extraordinary claim that in this particular case, that didn't happen?
I suppose back in the day there were those who missed the buggy whip.
> under the control of one group

Exactly.
PropellerAds ISO/IEC Certification-Oscarelmonix
Yup, viral content and events are great for 'commemorative' swag, and there's plenty of companies that offer print-on-demand for things like that.

One time I experienced a "trending topic" first (or second)hand; the app we were building accidentally sent a pair of test notifications to 2-3 million people, first the test message, then a second saying "zodat Hajo het ook gelooft" (so that Hajo (name) believes it too). That took the daytime internet by storm; news articles, radio segments, twitter trending topic, etc.

I mainly followed the topic on Twitter, and before long there were adverts on there selling swag related to the trending topic. There's companies (or even bots?) scanning Twitter, making swag-on-demand for trending topics.
Economic sanctions should aim at the top of Chinese society. Magnitsky type sanctions on officials. Things like preventing every political official or wealthy businessman and their family from travel, going to western universities and all these things they are now used to (and which they wouldn’t be happy to lose).
It is the FSF's opinion that "open source" misses the point, and it's pretty self-serving for them to have that opinion, because they don't control the term .

The OSI has in recent years been an ardent defender of free software principles, holding fast to the Debian Free Software Guidelines despite corporate pressure to approve various licenses where the source is technically open but fundamental freedoms are gone.

And, importantly, these corporate interests care about labeling their software as "open source" but not about labeling it as "free software." The FSF would say these licenses aren't "free software," but the corporate interests don't want people to think about fundamental freedoms anyway, so they wouldn't mind. It's therefore very important that someone is out there saying that you can't be "open source" either without the fundamental freedoms, and the OSI has been doing exactly that.

The fact that the FSF does not recognize what the OSI is doing for free software and sticks by an essay from roughly 20 years ago consisting of their opinions about users of the term "open source" is evidence of the FSF's continuing leadership failure - the FSF has been completely irrelevant in the discussions about the SSPL etc., which are among the biggest practical threats to free software today, and not only do they not realize that there's a job to be done, they don't realize who's been doing it, either.

But even that decade-old essay has a very clear footnote:

> Lakhani and Wolf's paper on the motivation of free software developers says that a considerable fraction are motivated by the view that software should be free. This is despite the fact that they surveyed the developers on SourceForge, a site that does not support the view that this is an ethical issue.

That is, a lot of people believe in the ethical imperative that the FSF calls "free software," even if they don't themselves phrase it in a way that the FSF approves of.
I think you're completely misunderstanding the incentives for Apple here. The theory is they don't want to deal with doing anything about forced labour, because evil, therefore their changes must be to water down the legislation.

That's not the situation though. They already have a forced labour policy, already do supply chain audits and have even already dumped suppliers for violating these policies. Their actual proposed changes really are just to make the legislation clearer and more enforceable. The reason is because then everybody else would also have to do what Apple already does, and face the costs and accountability the same way Apple does. This legislation is a windfall for them because it creates an expensive moat that it's hard for their competitors to cross.
I'm having a weird issue with a cheap projector I bought on Amazon, every time I power it on, all the devices in it surrounding stop working with WiFi.
All my LIFX lights disconnect, my phone cannot see the WiFi signal anymore, all until I turn the projector off.
Could this be related? I don't even know where to start diagnosing it.
Why do you clam up so hard against the possibility that there’s progress and potential on computers learning?

It’s because, if you admit there is even a slight possibility of progress being made, or future potential, suddenly you’re in the other camp - because it’s suddenly quite important to think about the ramifications. And you have self-categorized that you are not a part of all that mumbo-jumbo. So, retroactively, you have to think there is no possibility.

It is demonstrably false that no progress is being made. I can type `imagine “a bluebird”` and my computer generates one. Many people listen to AI generated music now. More still are directed to artists they like by one. Spot is incredible. Compared to 10 years ago we are in a different world of progress here. It might take a while, but it’s coming.
When I was taking schooling at university a person was busted for 5 lines of code.
You want to know what will cause Free Software to die? It isn't RMS.

The other day I told someone I thought this whole reaction to RMS was stupid. I was instantly labeled as "one of them", and "enabling harmful behavior" and blocked.

This is nothing more than a witch hunt, guilt by association, McCarthyism. Ideological conformity -- march in lockstep with me, or you're the enemy.

That is what will kill free software.
Or even private insurance. There is a reason many insurance plans send you exercise right reminders all the time: healthy people cost less to ensure and so make more money.
He was the first that publicly recognised the original outbreak as something new, but that's not the sort of preventive surveillance we're interested in.

Of course it would have been great if the Chinese were more transparent during those early days (and in general honestly), but it's pretty clear that the original outbreak was just the first smoke escaping from inside the burning roof: by late December it was already an uncontained epidemic that had spread far outside Wuhan.

We'd like something that would pick up the disease before it makes it to the epidemic status.
It sounds like either your distro f*cked up here, or you didn’t read the update notes, not sure what does it have to do with systemd..
> the early cases that most closely match the supposed bat-virus ancestor aren't even from the same province as the Wuhan virus lab.

Which province were they from? I know that related samples were found in bat guano from Yunnan province, but I've never heard of earlier human cases in another province.
In the OP he explains he used next.js cause he was familiar with it so could quickly implement it, and he made like maybe $300 from the whole thing thing, only like $40 from the NFT the rest from affiliate links (not enough to cover the time he spent on it at any reasonable rate were you working for someone else; would have been $70 less if his hosting company hadn't given him an unexpected freebie).

In the OP he comes off pretty well, just a guy looking to experiment and do something fun, see what happened, try different things. (If he had been serious about revenue generation and prepared, I am pretty sure he could have made a lot more money from this with that many impressions; that wasn't his focus).

You can experiment and do something fun irresponsibly (trolling) or responsibly (caring about the user experience and accuracy, not trying to rip anyone off), it sounds like he did it pretty responsibly. (I guess the rickroll is a bit grey area!) I also appreciate him sharing the details transparently. Assuming his story in the OP is truthful, which I think it probably is.

[I think NFT's are really dumb, I think it was kind of a funny joke to have an NFT there, and interesting to see his report-back about the process of issuing an NFT. There aren't a lot of people being transparent about their experience with NFTs!]
They didn’t need to do the correlation, other people have already done the leg work.

You’re effectively complaining they didn’t show their work when using dates from the Roman etc calendar. Historians really care about getting dates correct and have done extensive work to line up each historical calendar where possible.
Damn I wish you hadn't posted. Ah well.
I think all the arguments about ostracizing him are open. Most are pretty out of context or admittedly he apologized for.

To me, this looks more like a group of people who don’t like RMS joining hands with industry to remove RMS AND THE ENTIRE FSF board.

RMS did nothing legally wrong, that’s why he’s not in prison and there’s no investigation. Because he took no actions.

From my perspective, the “ostracize RMS” crowd appear like bigots who are attacking someone with autism for personal gain. Yes he did something potentially inappropriate, he apologized and we should work on reforming.

If there’s no forgiveness for someone who had a different opinion (he didn’t act on anything, as far as we know), then there will be no quarter. No one wants to live in a world with no recourse.
These cases have only observed in younger people and also the risk that Covid poses increases with age. So elderly people who are also at increased risk of severe Covid cases could still take advantage of it (and be better off regarding risk in a sense).
If I'm reading this right they support gnome, kde, and wlroots compositors, by sharing the protocols meant for screen sharing. Also they don't support capturing xwayland clients.
At someone's recommendation a while ago I made a proposal for integer-multiple upscaling - https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5967 . It feels very niche, especially given how complex the standards already are, but OTOH I'd use it if it were a thing...

(Also, that linked page is very cool, and shows how awfully tricky the problem is...none of the proposed solutions work on my iPad, especially not once one zooms in/out in the browser - oh it turns out it was related to browser zoom level - at normal zoom they work (sometimes when I resize the page at normal zoom it works, sometimes it doesn't...). So I guess it's 70% of the way there...but not all the way there).
For a large project with multiple contributors I wouldn't want to sign the whole tree at a particular point in time (which seems like the natural interpretation of a signed tag) unless I'd actually reviewed it all personally (which, sure, maybe some maintainers do). The commit is the part that I made, so that's the part that I want to sign (and of course it contains a secure reference to a parent commit, but a reader would naturally understand that I'm not vouching for the whole repo history). And I'd far rather publish my contributions as commits on my branches (that then become a PR) than email patches around and worry about how to archive that, personally.
The real joke here is that those tweets moaning about how unfunny is was just make those retweeting losers look pathetic attention seeking whores.
I have a similar domain with a 9 character URL that I have been running (wow - I had to look it up!) for 16 years for my own use and for my clients. I have some ddns clients that use it to update their DNS records when their IP changes.

I won't be advertising it here on HN any time soon, though, since it would probably fall over from the traffic. :)
Nothing in the article talks about how the virus first got into humans, beyond assuming an animal (not lab) source. It simply focuses on how unlikely it was, according to simulations, to survive the chain of initial infections long enough to fully develop into a pandemic.

The researchers discussed in the article believe the virus was present in a small number of people before the spread at the Wuhan market and view the spread there as among large numbers of people, not between the animals at the market and people there. So it's the crowds that were important there, not the seafood. Many countries around the world have densely crowded areas.

In order words, this was probably an unlikely event that could have happened in any country worldwide with densely crowded areas. It happened to be China this time, but that's coincidence and should not lead to anti-Chinese or anti-Asian hate.

Criticizing governments in China, the US, etc for aspects of their early pandemic handling is of course perfectly valid, as opposed to generalizing to the populations or ethnicities as a whole. But one should not discriminatorily focus on what China did wrong early on while ignoring the early mistakes of Western countries like the US, nor praise the US's mediocre pandemic results throughout most of 2020 while overlooking China's fast recovery through strict (albeit quite authoritarian) lockdowns.

For reference, I am American and not Chinese, but I still don't blame Chinese people generally for their government's bad handling of the early containment stage of the pandemic, nor for the coincidence that this virus spread from China.
> But historically, advances in wages and advantages tightly follow the economic curve: Employers increase wages when skills and economic development gets better.

Except that hasn't been the case since the 70's
The problem is if you can't be cured but can be helped. Diabetes is an example of something where with medical care you can live a long life, even though we can't cure you; but without help you are dead quickly.
I agree, but it could be good as a deflationary reserve asset, no?
> Something caused it

Yes

> and it came from China.

Yes, it seems that way.

>With a government that 100% cannot be trusted to tell the truth let alone defend human life,

Sure.

> it’s more likely than not this was an accidental leak.

This does not follow your other points. Just because it's within the realm of possibility that someone could have done it doesn't mean they did it. Just because someone is a bad guy doesn't mean you can attribute everything bad that happens in their house to them. Sometimes bad stuff happens and it's not anyone's fault.
There's dozens of naturally occurring virus outbreaks every year; why do you think a lab produced one is the most likely?

Also, who gained from the virus?
Should work fine, I've done it recently. Just make sure you have the latest version, and the v4l2loopback kernel module installed.

https://jonathanbossenger.com/obs-studio-linux-virtual-camer...
> So is GNU, though. For instance, https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html identifies the affiliations of most of the GCC steering committee, and they're generally proprietary companies. (Several work for Red Hat, a subsidiary of IBM.)

Red Hat releases most things under free licenses and as far as I know everyone on the GCC steering committee from Red Hat was there pre-acquisition. That said, I don't love the GCC steering committee for many reasons (many of which admittedly were before most of their appointments). You are right, though, that much of the steering committee for GCC isn't pro-freedom as much as it is pro-convenience (and in the case of SiFive, is a very proprietary company).

...also, the GCC steering committee isn't representative of all of GNU.

> Also, if we're going to claim that working for a proprietary-software company means you're not a member of the free software movement, the movement is very small indeed.

This is true! I wouldn't say working for one excludes you (though it kind of does), but I would say working for one is incompatible with leading the free software movement or having moral ground to coup it.

> That may be the case, but the FSF has a long history of saying that you can work on free software for profit, too.

You can! It really is wonderful. Nothing I said conflicts, there.

> Frankly, that's why the FSF exists separate from the GNU project - to be a place that you can order physical media with GNU software from and expense it.

Half-truth, but close enough. Again, this doesn't conflict with anything I said.

> This is untrue of the authors of the open letter - you should look at their stated positions on free and proprietary software. (It might be true of some of the signatories, of course.)

That isn't actually true for all of the authors; one I can recall offhand, Garrett works for a company making proprietary software of the worst kind: the type that can kill people. And that's on top of a long history of opinions far more controversial than anything Stallman has been accused of, let alone done (the guy mocked a man who the UN has admitted was being tortured, for example).
A key can be involuntarily "expired" if the private key was leaked.
I've been talking with friends about this issue and it really seems to come down to this: for some reason "intermediate" consequences are just impossible to implement in bureaucracies or organizations in general. Clearly Stallman did some completely unacceptable things and that can't go unpunished. However, like in all organizations I've seen (especially universities or hospitals dealing with sexual harassment from profs/attendings) there are only two types of consequences available: absolutely nothing, or complete exile. The organization rallies to protect the offender over and over until eventually a tidal wave becomes overwhelming and the organization is forced to purge the offender completely. This is bad for everyone: bad for the people being abused (and who will be abused), bad for the organization's reputation, bad for the offender themselves as there is never incentive to correct their behavior! I don't really know whether it's possible to implement a system of "intermediate" consequences but the lack of such a relief valve does serious harm in the long term. Regrettably in this system, exiling the offender is preferable to nothing being done yet again.
Yes, they get enough donations to cover their costs, just like Uber has enough VC cash and loans to continue its operations. It's non profit tax status is not strictly relevant to the fact that you typically need at least as much as money as it takes to run your entity rather than less. In my opinion, this doesn't change the spirit of the point that Wikipedia doesn't make money from its free, high-traffic service but rather from favorable financing for its goodwill and assets similar to a not profitable startup.
>We seem to have taken this to an extreme that rewards people who haven't made something useful.

My unpopular opinion is that the diversity push in tech ultimately comes down to everyone looking around nervously as they realize that who you are and what you look like counts more than how you think and what you can do - and what that means for the viability and sustainability of a space built on a mythos of meritocracy. There is an awareness that there are a number of perhaps raw, but good, products and potentially even careers (which may or may not require extra guidance to thrive) which are being passed over for gussied-up trivia and tripe, because the founders or team don't look the part.

That said, I don't know that profitability is ultimately the be-all-end-all of merit anyway. There are many services and institutions that should be run, even if merely at cost or in the red, because of the dividends they pay to society. I think we need to get better at identifying what those are, and especially at determining how much leeway to give them.
I have not opened those links so I don't know what RMS is going to say, but what does any of that have to do with free software?
I do find it worrying how people here use flagging for anything that is controversial or where the community is highly divided, flagging is not for downvoting... these things need to be discussed not marked as irrelevant or inappropriate.
I honestly thought this blog post was parody, until I realized it was way too long to be anything but genuine.

Sigh.
He funded a group trying to prevent homosexuals from having equal rights with everyone else. Regardless of your ethical views on the subject of homosexuals, it's wrong to try and prevent anyone from having freedom, especially in such an undemocratic way as throwing money at it.
I'm generating it every 10 minutes based on the current number of signatures on each of the letters. If you want the raw CSV it can be accessed here: https://www.polaris64.net/resources/support-or-ostracise-ric...

I did this as a way to visualise the number of signatures over time, just as a matter of interest.
Even if the outcome isn't particularly rare, I still think any bad outcome from a random process counts as unlucky.
Probably a reference to https://techcrunch.com/2014/03/28/after-supporting-prop-8-br....
They do have since last year (it used to be after my class, on the third year). It’s called Computer Networks and they learn things about configuring network hardware, OSI layers, etc. However, the “enlightenment” comes not from all the talk in that class, but latter when they start messing with the sockets, sending text back and forth, implementing chat services (and their own adhoc protocols), until they implement web “things” using only text (through the socket) and a browser..

Granted, not everyone of them will really understand all the nuances of what I try to teach them, but hopefully they’ll get some of it, and be better professionals than without that knowledge.
The point remains the FSF board would have better executed its mission of protecting the FSF by doing absolutely nothing. There was no desperate need to reinstate Stallman. Have they failed to produce any other leaders inside the organization that could take it and move it forward? Isn't there anyone else who could lead it? Stallman won't be able to front it forever and he already conveniently stepped aside. He's still the founder of the movement, and that he'll always be, but the noise he created for no good reason makes it clear he's unfit to lead this movement.
I don’t view it as being forced, I see it as people just expressing their preferences. Although I don’t agree with people spending effort on misuse of pronouns as I think that arguing with trolls is counterproductive. I’ve never experienced any genuine assholery in a professional sense with people not trying to use preferred salutations and in personal life, just ignoring idiots is already required. It seems similar to if someone were to call me a ginger because I have red hair. It’s rude, but not something I expect to experience.

I think the argument over it is bikeshedding and, for me, it’s just something I do to be polite and don’t think about it. In that if you said “Hello, I’m Foo sgt” I would work to call you “Foo sgt” and not “Dr sgt” or “Mr Bob” or whatever.

I want to spend zero cycles on this and move on to important things. Calling people by their preferred handle seems simple to me.

And I skip all the “But shouldn’t you force” stuff.