Show Navigation
Notices by Alexandre Oliva (moved to @lxo@gnusocial.jp) (lxo@gnusocial.net), page 65
-
oh, right, SSB is definitely not for you, that much was clear
my question was not towards SSB specifically, but about what it would take, in a decent(ralized) P2P system in which parties hold data for each other, to avoid triggering your reasonable and legitimate objection. any kind of controls, settings, that would help you feel safe (if that's the right word) to participate? e.g. would it help if all the data was encrypted and you couldn't tell what it is or whose it is? or would you rather be able to know and choose, presumably after the fact, that you don't wish to hold a specific piece of data any longer?
-
sounds good to me (not that you need my approval or anything ;-)
I'm glad you're not someone who conflates the two issues
SSB is probably not for you indeed: besides your own append-only log, you're expected to host and share logs and attachments of others you follow. that would probably feel uncomfortable for you.
alas, that sort of burden-trading is a building block for a lot of community, decentralized technology that makes the utility of the whole greater than the sum of the parts. I wish there was some way you could be part of it, without clashing with this choice you've expressed. that's a challenge I often run into, and if you have any ideas on how to overcome it, I'd love to hear (or read ;-) them
-
that kind of brings a new meaning to carl sagan's "we are star stuff"
-
pô, quéisso, tá na cara que é um dragão, sim!
agora a sua decepção me lembrou uma história engraçada de uma concunhada, artista plástica. pintou um gamo-rei. aí o pessoal da feirinha dizia que era um veado. até aí, vá lá. o que doeu nela foi a criança que apontou e falou "ó, mãe, um boi"
-
IMHO, deleting stuff you've already published is no more than an illusion
you can truncate your log, restore it to an earlier state, but if the system won't restore the subsequent bits you'd already published from the network, it's no more than fooling you
posting a follow-up withdrawing the earlier post is probably the most realistic achievable scenario, unless you're willing to break into and erase others' memories (be they biological or electronic)
or you can abandon, disown and delete the old log, and start a new one. none of this can undo the accident. it's uncomfortable, no doubt, but misaligning expectations and reality is no more than a source of frustration and disappointment
-
also, where were the fake accusations of sexual assault reasonably dismissed, but then resurrected for no good reason, and not resolved for years, as an excuse to take Julian Assange's freedom and life away, do you remember?
-
> we don't have political prisoners
that reminds me of the kangaroo court trial of TPB founders. where was that held, again? where did they serve their sentences?
-
don't forget to add lots of templates, for revenge ;-)
-
I guess it depends on which cause you wish to serve
when someone joins a cause under leadership of an offender to attack another offender, it's a safe assumption that the issue is not really the offense, that's just the excuse used to attack the other, sometimes even to distract from the attacker's own offense.
now, you're smart enough to realize that the superficial reason is dishonest at best, so I get to wonder why you choose to be a part of it, to allow yourself to be used by one offender against the other
-
I hear logging is no good for the environment
we need them, those trees!
-
RMS hardly has any space to make or give out. OSS, on the other hand, has watered-down and ruled the discourse, and got us back under corporate domination. maybe *they* should vacate the floor for FS instead?
your suggestion sounds very much like the typical political argument of alternating power, only resorted to when those one opposes are in power, failing to see anything wrong with their own party staying in power for decades. I guess mine will come across to you the same way, which just shows how the issue is not really who or why, but rather which ideas we support or oppose. political movements are not up for grabs. want a different one, start it. want to replace or destroy one you dislike? it's part of politics. but don't fool yourself or anyone else pretending or believing that's not what this is about: a hostile take-over attempt by fundamentally different ideas
https://www.fsfla.org/blogs/lxo/pub/against-software-tyranny
-
because social media trained them to use pictures for pieces of text larger than 140c?
-
Homo netizen
-
https://just-lang.org/
-
talvez fechar "o país" mesmo não seja má ideia, a depender do resultado das eleições
-
I don't know, but that still spells doom to me :-)
-
hmm... or maybe you were talking about the leaders of fauxpen source, or even of open source, who have never really been radicals from my POV, but that may have been perceived as radicals back then, and who have been punching down those who were already more radical even before they started?
-
that's an interesting notion, but it completely fails to apply to the situation at hand
people have trash-talked RMS pretty much since the beginning, precisely because he was both radical and weird. it's not like those attacking him now, in worse ways than before, stopped finding him radical, quite the opposite: corporations have never welcomed his radicalism, his strong focus on ethics, and there have been several waves of attempts to silence stances like his. heck, open source was coined just with that goal. the reason the movement has resisted such moves is not that it ceased to be radical and the attempted take-overs were more so, it's because the take-overs invariably attempted to water-down the radicalism that mattered, and often tried to bring in unrelated concerns as overriders. these have never been attempts to strengthen the movement, but rather to weaken it
-
seq 1 263 | shuf | sed -n '42p'
for the actual run, if you wish to overdo it ;-)
you may generate an input file with the names of the participants, instead of seq output, in some arbitrary (shuffled?) order. then generate a detached signature for the file, publish only the signature, and invite the participants to submit one random-source byte each. then you concatenate the bytes into a 263-byte file, in the order implied by the input file, and feed it as --random-source to shuf. then you run the command on some bootable live media, publish the input file, the random source, the result, and (hopefully) everyone will be able to verify that you haven't cheated, because they will be able to check that the input file matches the earlier signature, that their random byte is at the right spot, and that the command produces the same output, but they can't cheat in their random byte because they didn't know yet where it would go
picking line 42 is just cuteness ;-)
-
ok, so it is likely a matter of background. I've most often heard of "governance", and first heard the term, in the context of free software communities, in which quite often there aren't elected representatives of anything, just volunteers settling on processes to make collective decisions. government, OTOH, I've heard of since childhood, and since I was born under a military dictatorship, I could have ended up with a notion that it meant something bad, but I've learned enough afterwards about other forms of government, idealized and actual, that it eventually clicked and made the connection with governance, and I realized they both referred to the same underlying notions, though actual experiences of govern*ors* distant and unaccountable to people even in so-called democracies probably shift the meaning of govern*ment* closer to them. people's participation in direct, liquid democracies, with dynamic, selective, per-topic delegation would IMHO solve a lot of current problems
Alexandre Oliva (moved to @lxo@gnusocial.jp)
All Jonkman Microblog content and data are available under the