Stop spreading uncertainty and just read the aeticle. Your picnic is not communal prayer. And it's neither of public unless you invite everyone in the park around you to take a bite. And even then, your prayer isn't the reason for the gathering, so no, you're in no risk to violate the law.
I'm not sure about that, I went and read the bill[0], the law states:
“2. No public road, within the meaning of the third paragraph of section 66
of the Municipal Powers Act (chapter C-47.1), or public park may be used for
the purposes of collective religious practice unless a municipality authorizes,
exceptionally and on a case-by-case basis, such a use in its public domain by
resolution of the municipal council.
For the purposes of this Act, “religious practice” has the meaning assigned
by section 10.1 of the Act respecting the laicity of the State (chapter L-0.3)."
But going and reading the older Act respecting the laicity of the State[1] it doesn't actually have a section 10.1, so I'm not sure what that means.
For a security app, it's pretty rational to need to be updated. One of the most common patterns in basically every technological attack is to take a freshly discovered vulnerability and target devices that haven't been updated yet.
It sounds good in theory but signal updates are beyond excessive, sometimes multiple times a day but almost certainly every few days.
Most of the time there is zero explanation for the update. They are just training their users to auto accept updates with no thought about why, which in itself is a security risk.
If signal really is pushing these updates for "security" then it must be one of the most insecure apps ever built. I legitimately can't think of another app or program that updates more frequently... Maybe youtube-dl?
> It sounds good in theory but signal updates are beyond excessive
Those are two different arguments.
Updating too frequently is not equivalent to "doesn't need to be updated." I can agree that they update a bit too frequently but that's nowhere near the argument about never updating.
A program cannot be secure if it does not update. Full stop.
> Most of the time there is zero explanation for the update
There's always a changelog.
If you, unlike most people, are interested it is all open source
It seems like their 15GB Lifetime plan intentionally has a $1/year fee to ensure you're still around and using the account, as a defense against the plan becoming unsustainable. They don't seem to do that for this 5GB plan... how do they make it sustainable to offer?
Does it? The rules seem to suggest that the intent is to discourage arguments and grandstanding in favor of discussions, and many controversial topics and posts tend to end up as shouting matches in the comments.
> Basically the topics you might see in mainstream news are usually out.
Well yea, that’s officially part of the guidelines: “ Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.”
I meant before the DOGE stuff: the technical discussions on his claims about Tesla’s future capabilities, purchase of twitter and latter management, etc.
I am generally very happy with HN’s moderation, but I do feel some borderline topics that have been banned or buried missed interesting discussion. I don’t fault those responsible for not wanting to deal with the potential mess though.
It’s a shame. I distinctly remember a DOGE topic about assertions Musk was making that were easily explained by COBOL oddities. There was a great discussion about it here with knowledgable folks chiming in. And then it got flagged into oblivion. Mainstream news covered it but without any of the knowledge HN users had.
I tend to flag submissions about these kinds of political topics because it becomes clear in context that they're being submitted primarily to provide space for complaining about a political outgroup. This never leads anywhere productive. Best case, everyone agrees and they just stew about how awful the world supposedly is. Common case, people are forced to confront the fact that other people have different values, cultural assumptions etc. and can reasonably come to wildly different conclusions, even starting from the same evidence, because a lot of this is nowhere near as objective a matter as it appears. Worst case, the disagreeing people in the hated outgroup also feel that their position has been grossly misrepresented in the submission.
I could name 10 widely held societal opinions that would instantly get flagged and likely your account banned if you mention a few times. Very hive mind place here
HN wants polite discussion which lends itself well to science and technology topics. Get farther away into history or politics where opinion comes in, then it becomes impossible to debate because arguments that disagree with the hive mind (upper middle class, intelligent, center-left technology professionals) get downvoted and flagged because of popularity.
This just isn’t a site for arguing politics, if you do it too much with opinions different from the hive mind you get banned for disruptive behavior
Did you mean to post this as a reply elsewhere? You made the claim that people are banned for certain opinions and I asked for more information on that.
You will get banned if you speak too controversially, but the bigger issue is you get downvoted for wrong-think, but that’s the nature of HN and probably why it has survived so long
you'd have to do additional analysis to find which accounts stopped posting after the linked warnings though. It's not usually the opinion itself that's the problem, but that users with controversial opinions have other things going on, so the controversial opinion is often delivered in a “wake up sheeple” flamebait persecution complex “in smart and everyone here is an idiot” style, which isn’t conducive to constructive debate.
The evidence there seems to make my point? Those people aren’t being warned for the content of their opinions, they’re being warned not to engage in flamewars or insults or other forms of incivility.
My claim isn’t “nobody gets banned from HN”, it’s “nobody gets banned from HN for having unpopular opinions”.
The parallel comment has very nearly invoked Godwin’s law, so I guess I’ll concede that if your opinion is “a group of people should be killed”, then yea, expressing that opinion would likely end in a ban. We can debate how much of that ban is for the opinion vs calling for the murder of other humans.
These guys are never able to cite examples. Every time the conversation comes up, they fly in with a vague innuendo, "oh, you know those topics--I'm not going to say it!" plus a "trust me bro" and then fly off without actually getting specific.
My bet is that what gets people banned is repeatedly being disrespectful or rude, not the opinions they’re disrespectful or rude about.
We have a great example via the flagged reply in this comment tree, where somebody is complaining about being silenced and their example is full of rambling invective yelling at the moderator.
> They deserve credit which they won't be able to claim anymore.
Why won't they be able to claim credit for the work that they did the past because of other people's work in the present?
> Also, to me, Eric talking doesn't sound authentic, and I wouldn't be surprised if he's lying. I don't mean to insult though, mad respect for putting project like Pebble together.
What the heck are you trying to do here if not insult him? It seems wild to say he sounds inauthentic and you think he's potentially lying, and then try to hedge by saying that's not intended as an insult.
It feels odd to complain about "tools doing black magic" when the new way is "cloud init, a tool used by a ton of infra platforms" and the old way is "drop a file in this directory and it will somehow get slurped into the right space at the right time".
Isn't cloud init just slurping its own config file, then generating the "real" config files and slurping those into the right spaces?
To me, "copies a file named wpa_supplicant.conf from /boot to /etc on first init" is simpler than "parses some yaml, the generates /etc/wpa_supplicant".
Maybe I'd find it worthwhile if I had encountered cloud init years ago before I invested in learning the other 900 linux networking configuration tools, but now it just feels like a case of XKCD 927 (+1 competing standards). If cloud init is even better, it definitely doesn't seem 10x better to be worth the change.
Cloud init is a tool with documentation and a file format for config, that’s used all over the place.
I’m not making the case that it’s better, just that it’s no more “black magic” than wpa_supplicant’s config file is, and it’s less magical than dropping a wpa_supplicant file into /boot and the raspberry pi doing a bespoke RPi-specific shuffle to move it into place.
1. Apple can and does comply with subpoenas for user information that it has access to. This includes tons of data from your phone unless you're enrolled in Advanced Data Protection, because Apple stores your data encrypted at rest but retains the ability to decrypt it so that users who lose their device/credentials can still restore their data.
2. Apple has refused on multiple occasions, publicly, to take advantage of their position in the supply chain to insert malicious code that expands the data they have access to. This would be things like shipping an updated iOS that lets them fetch end-to-end encrypted data off of a suspect's device.
Not to mention, while apple will publically deny it, there are government agents working undercover at every major tech firm. They may or may not know. They certainly exist.
reply