It’s also worth noting that artical does not presume there’s a “safe” way to allow others to execute code on our computers. We really just have to trust the developers.
The suggestions from the artical (to sum it up) are basically to 1) make link targets more powerful and 2) allow CSS to be made conditional on the presence of another selector.
I find these suggestions very intriguing and should be more than enough to, say, recreate this site’s interface, though it would be a little heavier on the server. Which could probably be fixed without reintroducing clientside scripting.
The problem is that while water filtering is something you do, a programmer is something you are.
Programming is a fundamental way of expressing one freedom.
We don’t see it as such, we see it as a job, just because it is still too primitive in itself (like writing was during Ancient Egypt). But we should work to make programming simpler (not necessarily easier) and teach everybody how to do that.
Think of this: in the very moment the majority of people will be able to hack, proprietary software will stop to have an advantage over free software: free software will have most programmers and a competitive advantage over ANY closed source solution.
Even better: imagine a dumb politician facing hacker crews wherever he talk! :-D
With Adrian Cochrane (the author of Odisseus Web Browser) and a couple other guys, we are brainstorming on the principles that should drive the design and development of a better web (in no order… sorry):
I disagree. Just like not everyone should know how to tear down a car engine, and rebuild it, not everyone needs to learn to code.
Personally, I think some other skills are more important than coding. ie, starting a fire without matches. Construction of a basic water filtering system. Wood and metal craft. etc etc etc
I think replacing it with something else is the wrong way of looking at it. We should not encourage any “perceived safe” way of allowing others to execute code on our machine in a drive by fashion.
One of the largest problems (Whole domain vs specific content filtering) is already solved by state actors: They are just MITM’ing the entire internet connection for their citizens.
No. But they can lose it by violating the license.
Edit: to be clear, they can lose the rights you share with them, over your own modifications. They cannot lose the rights over the code or contents they created.
Be careful that it lacks a NO WARRANTY disclaimer, and afaik without it you could be sued for demage that one of your users pretend the software caused them.
Also, without it, many companies wouldn’t modify your software to avoid the risk.
I’m not against the idea of copyleft, I’m just against some of the extremes a license goes to. I’d prefer a permissive license over copyleft for a personal project, however copyleft over closed-source; copyright. The GPL and AGPL are a bit too extreme for me - the LGPL is ok. It’s just my opinion - nothing to do with your license. Your license is great for it’s intention.
The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this License does not affect the validity or enforceability of the remainder of this License. Such provision is to be reformed to the minimum extent necessary to make
it valid and enforceable.
Mind to elaborate?
Maybe a language barrier, but I don’t undestand what you mean.
I need this for my new tilde-login workstation! It’ll make those ssh sessions fly!
It’s also worth noting that artical does not presume there’s a “safe” way to allow others to execute code on our computers. We really just have to trust the developers.
The suggestions from the artical (to sum it up) are basically to 1) make link targets more powerful and 2) allow CSS to be made conditional on the presence of another selector.
I find these suggestions very intriguing and should be more than enough to, say, recreate this site’s interface, though it would be a little heavier on the server. Which could probably be fixed without reintroducing clientside scripting.
The problem is that while water filtering is something you do, a programmer is something you are.
Programming is a fundamental way of expressing one freedom.
We don’t see it as such, we see it as a job, just because it is still too primitive in itself (like writing was during Ancient Egypt). But we should work to make programming simpler (not necessarily easier) and teach everybody how to do that.
Think of this: in the very moment the majority of people will be able to hack, proprietary software will stop to have an advantage over free software: free software will have most programmers and a competitive advantage over ANY closed source solution.
Even better: imagine a dumb politician facing hacker crews wherever he talk! :-D
Totally agree.
With Adrian Cochrane (the author of Odisseus Web Browser) and a couple other guys, we are brainstorming on the principles that should drive the design and development of a better web (in no order… sorry):
Unfortunately the mastodon ui is not great for brainstorming.
The idea is to go back to a JS-free web, with an better designed markup to support cool HyperTexts but not applications.
That is, forums but not chats.
We are still brainstorming, but you are welcome to join.
I disagree. Just like not everyone should know how to tear down a car engine, and rebuild it, not everyone needs to learn to code.
Personally, I think some other skills are more important than coding. ie, starting a fire without matches. Construction of a basic water filtering system. Wood and metal craft. etc etc etc
I think replacing it with something else is the wrong way of looking at it. We should not encourage any “perceived safe” way of allowing others to execute code on our machine in a drive by fashion.
One of the largest problems (Whole domain vs specific content filtering) is already solved by state actors: They are just MITM’ing the entire internet connection for their citizens.
That’s exactly my intention! Thanks!
Well… I’m not a lawyer!
I can’t really say if it’s alright, but I don’t see any serious issue in it.
It seems a simple and permissive license. (which is a good thing)
Thanks, I’ll add it!
Edit 1: Could you check it out and tell me if it’s alright? Thanks!
Indeed! Everybody should be a hacker!
Programming now is what writing was 5000 years ago
No. But they can lose it by violating the license.
Edit: to be clear, they can lose the rights you share with them, over your own modifications. They cannot lose the rights over the code or contents they created.
Be careful that it lacks a NO WARRANTY disclaimer, and afaik without it you could be sued for demage that one of your users pretend the software caused them.
Also, without it, many companies wouldn’t modify your software to avoid the risk.
Not Everyone Should Code: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFwa5Owp0-k What Most Schools Don’t Teach: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKIu9yen5nc
I’m not against the idea of copyleft, I’m just against some of the extremes a license goes to. I’d prefer a permissive license over copyleft for a personal project, however copyleft over closed-source; copyright. The GPL and AGPL are a bit too extreme for me - the LGPL is ok. It’s just my opinion - nothing to do with your license. Your license is great for it’s intention.
Oh, you share it. So could I terminate any copyright the Hackers of the Inspiring Hack have on it?
I hacked my own license: https://tildegit.org/murii/ETUL-License
Now that’s a lot of cores!
better article about it. https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/news/intel-announces-cascade-lake-advanced-performance-and-xeon-e-2100-processor/?fbclid=IwAR23GWN8ks6oXrQBLp5ocsuIfkdBON_sqTuckorlCsKaW3razBNXFHUAI_k
Mind to elaborate?
Maybe a language barrier, but I don’t undestand what you mean.