It's worth noting that since the collateralized housing debt scandal of the Global Financial Crisis, approximately nothing changed in regulation, and credit card and auto debt securitization has taken off in its place. Investors still want to put their money somewhere.

Who is the Lehman Brothers of the new securitized debt? That meltdown is coming.

And what if the battery weight is nearer axle centerline than an ICE?

If Google (or any other crawler) wanted to play nice with paywalls, they could issue a public key for their bot, and put a signature in their User Agent string that the domain could then verify.

Those signatures could obviously leak, but on a per-domain basis. Perhaps the domains could have a secure way of bumping the valid key generation if they had a leak.

There are two problems with this.

First, they don't want to. In fact, if a search engine can figure out that a link is going to lead to a paywall, they'll probably want to reduce the ranking of the result, because the user is not going to want results they can't actually look at.

Second, it would be a massive antitrust violation because it would prevent access by competing crawlers. The only way around that is to allow access to anyone who claims they're a crawler, which was the original problem.

The current situation with the WSJ could already be considered an antitrust violation. It's whitelisting one crawler and leaving the other ones out.

Google (and every other major search engine) already provide a way, i.e. reverse DNS lookup, to authentic bot ownership:

https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/80553?hl=en

AFAIK no content provider actually does this check though.

As a general rule, I don't use public wifi and council people to use VPN if they must. No flash, disable java in the browser, prefer chrome to safari, AdBlock and NoScript if you don't need JS.

I have removed Flash from my machines but using Chrome over Safari is like kissing your battery goodbye. It does not put the CPU to sleep properly for some tabs. It is sad.

Could you provide a citation for "automatically jailed for not handing over your encryption keys" - I have not heard that before.

RIP Act in UK. Certainly detained (witness what happened to GG's partner in LHR).

Not automatically jailed, but can be jailed when they want the key and not turned over.

Pre-commit hook should address your concern?

I agree with the premise of judging based on both action and context, power and relationship. I agree that hackers aren't the nerd-revenge underdogs (if we ever really were). I agree that we have power to do good, and we mostly piss it away trying to impress each other.

But I disagree that RIAA and MPAA are totally losing - they still have direct lines to power through the government and its regulative and, ultimately, judicial and military power.

There are more than 2 sides. There is not "the man" vs. "the underdog". It's less chess and more hungry hippos. Yes, we should build something better (for the market, for the world, for the commons) than TPB. But the regulative status quo disallows those things. TPB is a mushroom colony. What you want is a tilled field.

The government does not serve RIAA well, but it also salts the earth where we might grow internet-aware markets. TPB is a compromise solution, and better than nothing.

What we build is not in a vacuum.

Let's get started cultivating the field, plowing under the existing regulation which is defunct and self-serving, erecting new fences where boundaries represent newly-reasonable compromises, advantages, and common sense.

Because software is eating the world.

Because entrepreneurship creates jobs.

Because software is the new means of production.

Because people different than you have problems which are different than yours.

Because dog-fooding is a great way to make something people want.

Lots more reasons, but chew on those.

Only 1 and 3 are relevant, and I don't believe either of them are true. The rest of those apply equally to all sorts of other skilled trades.

Thanks for showing your confirmation bias. Keep asking questions you don't want to think about.

If you don't have any interest in engaging in a good faith discussion that don't reply. This isn't reddit, shitposting isn't rewarded here.

That people are reading this subthread and finding common cause with this right here... Do you realize how ridiculous you are?

If you would like to know what racism is and why criticism of a dominant group on the basis of race isn't in, here's one take: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw_mRaIHb-M

But you'd have to listen to get it, and you'd definitely have to give up your bullshit self-serving circular "logic".

> That people are reading this subthread and finding common cause with this right here...

...is indicative of the fact that mentioned people have tweeted a link to it, bringing a predominantly sympathetic crowd to attempt to kick my ass in the comments. Including you. I can read Twitter, you know.

I can't understand the rest of your comment. Can you rephrase your disagreement and point out what you take issue with? It would also help if you didn't refer to my opinion as bullshit, or at least provide some specificity on what you find to be bullshit about what I've said.

Where does the parent comment even mention racism? This is just a drive-by snipe attacking something that the parent didn't even say.

I think there's some amount of aptitude, but mostly it's just applying effort over time. Keep going.