Nevertheless there is almost a moral equivocation between images of sex and actual sex by some people. We are talking about restraining someone physically inside a 2 by 3 meter box for multiple years as a retribution for what is after all just pixels on a screen.
(And by the way the implicit comparison here between an image of stalin and an image of a teenage girl is more apt than most would care to admit given the ideological function fulfilled by sexualized images of young women in contemporary American society)
Yeah, 'pixel on a screen'. I will send deepfake video of your daughter (or sister, or mother) having sex to you, let's see how they appreciate it. It's only pixels after all. Or picture of you having sex to your friends, SO and parents, that's probably fine.
I don't have sex in front of my friends and family for a reason, and I would appreciate my privacy protected by the state. And yes, privacy breach of this magnitude is probably worth 2-3 years (which basically means nothing for the first offense, let's be realistic, but makes the second offense way more consequencial).
Isn't it true? You are reacting to me with a fervor that lends its intensity from the moral values around actual physical sex with actual minors, but nothing of that kind occured here.
The point is that these images are so realistic that it's difficult to tell they're fake. Your weird Soviet analogy is not remotely the same thing -- making a teenage girl think that everyone in her life has seen her expose herself sexually and done things she hadn't really done is personally humiliating and devastating in a way scrawling some political heresy about a public figure is obviously not. Kids have literally committed suicide over shit like this.
My issue with this type of thinking is it assumes "transport cost <<< manufacturing cost" -- a decent assumption for a lot of goods throughout a lot of history, but just... not really true for lots of things in a modern supply chain.
The cost of moving the gown between users -- in the form of the user needing to give back the gown to the service, who must then clean it, inspect it, etc. -- may in fact be far higher than the cost of manufacturing a new gown and only needing your supply lines to be "one way".
Sure, but there's a lot of random matter on Earth -- excess trash being an issue is less about space and more about externalities (e.g. toxic chemicals leaching).
Being mindful of how much trash we produce does not necessitate producing less (or more!) -- but merely balancing the pros and cons.
You would assume that there is more proprietary code available to read on the internet than GPL code? Do you have any rationale for that assumption?
Basically all GPL code is available on the web and there is a vast amount of it. I barely see any current non-FOSS code on the internet, although I think it would be fair to count the big projects who have been using pseudo-OSS licenses lately as proprietary. Wouldn't a safer assumption be a ratio of 10:1 or 100:1 for lines of GPL vs. lines of "shared source?"
Basically true if you add "to paying customers", there's no obligation to publish it otherwise. You can even sell your GPL software on DVD if you like.
Tools growing unexpected code execution is how we keep having problems with secrets and other important things being stolen. If you add this feature to git, generally, then anybody cloning a git repo is going to have to deal with the fact that `git clone` might run arbitrary code. `git clone` is like `cp`. Do you want `cp` to unexpectedly run code? It should never do that.
Why force git to be a build tool?
Just document how to execute the scripts/checks that will be used by ci. Provide a simple script in the repo that folks can intentionally execute.
Git is already a build tool and LFS is a great example of something git should be able to do and is also an example of how bolted on these things feel because of pointless push back in talking about a real solution.
You don't need to bring up bad ideas as if it precludes the existence of good ideas. Let's talk about good ways to solve these problems and improve the tool.
I think they are saying passwords are salted and we use multiple rounds of hashing to prevent rainbow tables and slow down brute-forcing the password (in case of db leak). We don't need to do that for randomized long strings (like api keys), no one is guessing 32 character random string, so no salt is needed and we don't need multiple rounds of hashing.
reply