I haven't had much time to read my GNU Social feed over the past few months, but every time I do, I end up playing Emacs tetris because of @cwebber's avatar.
This is the one event that I must make it to each year, and I encourage everyone to attend and see the faces of many that are at the heart of the free software community.
Consider submitting a session! Or, if you can't make it but plan on watching online, maybe help someone else attend by contributing to the travel fund. The call for sessions ends October 26th.
I'll be attending again this year, and I plan on submitting a session proposal. I won't have the time to do my 100+hr research talks like the past couple years, so maybe I'll fall back on something more technical that I won't have to research.
It's still a ways off, but if you do plan on attending, do let me know so I can say hello!
@codesections Ah, small world! I think it's generally preferred that others link to works, rather than the original author (with the exception of "Show HN" things). HN is a news aggregator; it exists for others to share links with one-another.
Thanks for sharing it, though. I'm happy to see the topic getting attention.
@samir I'm hoping that websites themselves strip out a lot of the junk, not just provide alternative sites. If a site is well-written, it should degrade well to plain text. I'm in favor of progressive enhancement.
It's something that many of us have been saying for many years. But I've been largely insulated from it: I have blocked all scripts and ads (for privacy and security reasons, but also because most sites serve proprietary JavaScript code) for years. If it weren't for my research (https://mikegerwitz.com/talks), I wouldn't have realized just how bad it has become.
I've also run all my browsing through #Tor for years. And what this article reminds me of (but does not mention; this is unrelated) is how Tor used to be so painfully slow---worse than dialup. It has improved drastically over the years, but by design, it's always going to be slower than directly connecting to a webserver.
But despite that, websites often finish loading for me much faster than those who use the "normal" web over a normal connection, because it's not loading so much shit. That also allows me to stick to <256MiB of data per month on my mobile plan, despite browsing sites linked to on HN and despite the extra packets from Tor itself. (Btw, text.npr.org is great, for those who didn't know of it.)
The very things that got me downvoted into oblivion on HN years ago are now the popular, obvious things. Why do things have to get so _bad_ before most people begin to care?
@fsf Though, I do suspect that the user is referring to non-free software when he/she says "our own software"; such software does not work for us and is _not_ our own. But free software does serve the user, and is something users can call their own.
Despite my emphasis, it's good to see the perspective.
To clarify: they cut out the beginning part of the question but left the end of it to make it seem as if the reporter was asking Putin something entirely different.
I just saw reported on MSNBC that they also _edited the question out of the video_.
This is what you expect from Russia. From China. From North Korea. From authoritarian regimes that exercise full control over their population and control what information reaches them. This 1984-style rewriting of history is deeply troubling.
We're used to lies from Trump and his administration, but blatantly and so obviously attempting to conceal actual history---where so many other accounts exist, and where so many people were present---is a new low. And a stupid one at that, considering it is so easily refuted.
@aral I am opposed to certain decisions @Mozilla has made, but characterizing Mozilla as a "surveillance capitalist" is dishonest and undermines a lot of good, important work that they do.
> In 2006, the same period when ES&S says it was still installing pcAnywhere on election systems, [attackers] stole the source code for the pcAnyhere software, though the public didn’t learn of this until years later in 2012 when a hacker posted some of the source code online, forcing Symantec, the distributor of pcAnywhere, to admit that it had been stolen years earlier. Source code is invaluable to [attackers] because it allows them to examine the code to find security flaws they can exploit.
It's worth noting that access to the source code of the software should have no impact on the security of that software---"security through obscurity", as it is called, is not security. Users should expect that the source code for all software they use has been made publicly available (and is free/libre software) as a precondition for any claims of "security" so that anyone and everyone can audit it, track changes, and improve upon it.
They further used it as an example to Congress on how disastrous bad patents can be.
I love seeing stories like this: I support the EFF with membership not only because of the good, important work that the do at a policy and activism level, but also because of the work they do in defending the rights of individuals and small groups that would be unable to do so themselves.