Copyleft is a mirror of copyright, not a way to fight copyright. It grants rights to the consumer where copyright grants rights to the creator. Importantly, it gives the end-user the right to modify the software running on their devices.
Unfortunately, there are cases where you simply can't just "re-implement" something. E.g., because doing so requires access to restricted tools, keys, or proprietary specifications.
"So, I looked for a way to stop that from happening. The method I came up with is called “copyleft.” It's called copyleft because it's sort of like taking copyright and flipping it over. [Laughter] Legally, copyleft works based on copyright. We use the existing copyright law, but we use it to achieve a very different goal."
"very different goal" isn't the same as "fundamentally destroying copyright"
the very different goal include to protect public code to stay public, be properly attributed, prevent companies from just "sizing" , motivate other to make their code public too etc.
and even if his goals where not like that, it wouldn't make a difference as this is what many people try to archive with using such licenses
this kind of AI usage is very much not in line with this goals,
and in general way cheaper to do software cloning isn't sufficient to fix many of the issues the FOSS movement tried to fix, especially not when looking at the current ecosystem most people are interacting with (i.e. Phones)
---
("sizing"): As in the typical MS embrace, extend and extinguish strategy of first embracing the code then giving it proprietary but available extensions/changes/bug fixes/security patches to then make them no longer available if you don't pay them/play by their rules.
---
Through in the end using AI as a "fancy complicated" photocopier for code is as much removing copyright as using a photocopier for code would. It doesn't matter if you use the photocopier blind folded and never looked at the thing you copied.
That’s not a rebuttal of the OP’s point. None of that says anything about fighting copyright. It literally says he flipped it which is wha the OP said when they said it’s a mirror.
To prevent malicious Wi-Fi clients from attacking other clients on the same network, vendors have introduced client isolation, a combination of mechanisms that block direct communication between clients. However, client isolation is not a standardized feature, making its security guarantees unclear. In this paper, we undertake a structured security analysis of Wi-Fi client isolation and uncover new classes of attacks that bypass this protection. We identify several root causes behind these weaknesses. First, Wi-Fi keys that protect broadcast frames are improperly managed and can be abused to bypass client isolation. Second, isolation is often only enforced at the MAC or IP layer, but not both. Third, weak synchronization of a client’s identity across the network stack allows one to bypass Wi-Fi client isolation at the network layer instead, enabling the interception of uplink and downlink traffic of other clients as well as internal backend devices. Every tested router and network was vulnerable to at least one attack. More broadly, the lack of standardization leads to inconsistent, ad hoc, and often incomplete implementations of isolation across vendors. Building on these insights, we design and evaluate end-toend attacks that enable full machine-in-the-middle capabilities in modern Wi-Fi networks. Although client isolation effectively mitigates legacy attacks like ARP spoofing, which has long been considered the only universal method for achieving machinein-the-middle positioning in local area networks, our attack introduces a general and practical alternative that restores this capability, even in the presence of client isolation.
Maybe I've just lost all patience for fluff, but I gave up trying to figure out what the attack was from the article pretty quickly where the abstract answered all my questions immediately.
The House of Lords is the most democratic hereditary system in the world. The 90 of the 92 heredities are elected from amongst the available candidates.
The house of lords is a stamping system at this point, and maybe a stopgap to authoritarianism. All power resides in the House of Commons which is elected
The true issue lies in the fact that the Westminster style of government is de facto an elective tyranny, with no real checks and balances other than the misused ECHR
If this were true, the papers wouldn't have run an article yesterday bitching about the lords sending back the workers rights bill again.
The commons may _eventually_ overrule them, but it takes time and costs political capital.
The majority of our population want more law, more rules, more restrictions : they don't see the value or enjoyment in doing something, so they don't think anyone should be able to do it.
Ask the average joe whether or not cars should prevent drivers from being able to "chose" to break the speed limit: You'll get a resounding "yes" 8/10 times - the value of freewill seems to be increasing lost on my country men.
I actually dont think your comment invalidates mine. The house of lords cannot really do anything than be a pain in the ass by sending the bill 3 times. The commons will eventually outrule them if they have sufficient political capital.
My comment on elective tyranny comes from the fact that if a trifecta of: leader/party mps/house of lords are aligned there is little to stop them.
This done I think all of the debates around authoritarianism and censorship put too much blame on the government which seems to represent the views of the majority of people rather well. I think it also comes from the fact that the median age is older and older people are more conservative in their choices and thus more willing to put limitations on everything (and also the fucking boomers vote as a 25% bloc which imposes their choices on the remaining poplation i.e the infamous triple lock of retirements)
We do need to provide better services, but that's not going to solve this issue. The vast majority of people struggling to make ends meet don't stoop to destroying public infrastructure. Only the true anti-social assholes go there.
This is the kind of attitude that gets us here. "Bad people don't deserve help or services. This is reserved for the morally pure." Or even more simply "Criminals don't deserve help. Lock em up and forget about em." We are still destroying lives over fucking weed. It's all connected.
This article left me more confused than enlightened. I recommend reading https://risencrypto.github.io/Monero/ instead as it actually explains how the cryptography fits into Monero.
You likely don't need to optimize anything; Emacs has seen some pretty significant optimizations recently (native Emacs Lisp compilation, tree-sitter modes, better handling of long lines, etc.) so performance is rarely the issue.
However, you do need to avoid call-process (spawning blocking processes) as much as possible. Also, my experience with TRAMP has been pretty awful due to the fix for https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=12145 (literally: TRAMP blocks all of Emacs while waiting on a network connection).
If you want to try eshell, try combining it with EAT (eat-eshell-mode).
> Maybe in my retirement I will end my career by helping to make emacs + EXWM multi threaded. I am guessing that is a daunting project, but it sure would be fulfilling.
This isn't fixable with threads, unfortunately. The issue is that:
1. Emacs e.g., launches a process with call-process. This blocks EVERYTHING (including other threads).
2. That process wants to map the window but EXWM can't respond to this request because Emacs is blocked.
3. The call to call-process never returns because the process can't create its window.
At this point, I think the right answer is to write a minimal out-of-process window manager (e.g., a wayland compositor).
1. During normal operation, it would behave like EXWM and ask Emacs how to manage windows, etc.
2. In special cases (TBD), it would behave autonomously, acting like a standard floating window manager until Emacs becomes responsive again.
IMO, they're a great way to get started without having to invest too much time up-front. On the other hand, that was 10 years ago and it's a LOT easier to throw together a usable config nowadays; with LSP + built-in tree-sitter modes, you no longer need 3 packages per language plus a bunch of configuration glue.
Unfortunately, there are cases where you simply can't just "re-implement" something. E.g., because doing so requires access to restricted tools, keys, or proprietary specifications.
reply