Am I the only who finds it odd how Wired is treated as a person?
The article begins with
>The Wired article by David Gilbert
Acknowledging that there is a real person called David Gilbert who wrote the article and it wasn't just an amalgamation known as "Wired" who did. Yet later it says:
>Wired just a month earlier encouraged its readers to adopt encrypted messaging apps, making its current stance even more contradictory.
But that article was written by Lauren Goode and Michael Calore.
If Wired had a stance in this, it would be exercising editorial control, which some would criticize for censoring the authors. Instead, Wired publishes whatever its authors write, and then some criticize for writing contradictory articles.
If I was Wired I'd just shrug because you can't win.
When you own a trademark that is for publishing and you let people slap your logo on their writing, you take responsibility for what they say. That's the whole point of the trademark, to take credit for publishing the words. You can't have it both ways.
Usually, when real journalism publications do this, they make sure to prominently display "OPINION" before these writings, along with a disclaimer that the views of the author do not reflect the views of the editorial board.
Normally (at least in the now-distant pre-internet past), newspapers were supposed to be as unbiased as reasonably possible and just report the news, though they frequently had opinion sections ("op-ed") which were clearly marked as such. Magazines catered to specific groups of people with specific interests, so those could be more biased (e.g., Motor Trend was quite blatant about its pro-car bias, for obvious reasons). But yes, along with this was consistency in ideology: you wouldn't buy Motor Trend and expect to see both pro- and anti-car opinions expressed there, and if you didn't like cars and car culture, you wouldn't buy the magazine to begin with.
If I were charitable, I would say there are technologists who are skeptical of completely unauditable, untraceable communication and they don't necessarily need to be government stooges to think that.
Same way we might read an article from a muscle-car-lover glowing about a Land Rover right before an article calling for bans on pure-ICE vehicles in MotorTrend.
It's perfectly possible that Wired is a brand known for its high quality writers, and those writers just happen to write well-written, well-researched articles with opposing viewpoints.
It's also possible that's not the case and they just publish whatever.
In any case what I mean is that I find it odd to ascribe intent to everything a publication publishes. They publish a lot of things by a lot of authors. They probably have more than one editor checking the articles. It's not possible to control the whole narrative.
Even if you assume that Wired has an agenda and that it exercises editorial control to further that agenda, that agenda isn't necessarily related to this particular topic. There are hundreds of topics to have agendas for. They may have a general pro-technology bias without bothering to decide their stance on every single sub-topic within their niche, for example.
> Am I the only who finds it odd how Wired is treated as a person?
Wired is a brand, and they have editors. Nothing gets published without editors.
Those editors can choose what to push, or not. There will be a policy about what they push, and why. That policy is what decides if it's Drudge Report, or Avanti!, Fox News or Mother Jones, etc.
My understanding is that that court case did not show that operating a torrent tracker is illegal, but specifically operating a (any) service with the explicit intent of violating copyright... huge difference IMO.
To me that's not even related to it being a torrent tracker, just that they were "aiding and abetting" copyright infringement.
Ok. But what is the case law in hosting illegal content? Sure you may operate a torrent, but if your client is distributing child porn, in my view, you bear responsibility.
Trackers generally do not host any content, just hashcodes and (sometimes) meta data descriptions of content.
If "your" (ie let's say _you_ TZubiri) client is distributing child pornography content because you have a partially downloaded CP file then that's on _you_ and not on the tracker.
The "tracker" has unique hashcode signatures of tens of millions of torrents - it literaly just puts clients (such as the one that you might be running yourself on your machine in the example above) in touch with other clients who are "just asking" about the same unique hashcode signature.
Some tracker affiliated websites (eg: TPB) might host searchable indexes of metadata associated with specific torrents (and still not host the torrents themselves) but "pure" trackers can literally operate with zero knowledge of any content - just arrange handshakes between clients looking for matching hashes - whether that's UbuntuLatest or DonkeyNotKong
We agree in that if my client distributes illegal content, I am responsible, at least in part.
On the other hand I also believe that a tracker that hosts hashes of illegal content, provides search facilities for and facilitates their download, is responsible, in a big way. That's my personal opinion and I think it's backed in cases like the pirate bay and sci hub.
That 0 knowledge tracker is interesting, my first reaction is that it's going to end up in very nasty places like Tor, onion, etc..
A tracker (bit of central software that handles 100+ thousand connections/second) is not a "torrent site" such as TPB, EZTV, etc.
A tracker handshakes torrent clients and introduces peers to each other, it has no idea nor needs an idea that "SomeName 1080p DSPN" maps to D23F5C5AAE3D5C361476108C97557F200327718A
All it needs is to store IP addresses that are interested in that hash and to pass handfuls of interested IP addresses to other interested parties (and some other bookkeeping).
From an actual tracker PoV the content is irrelevant and there's no means of telling one thing from another other than size - it's how trackers have operated for 20+ years now.
Trackers can hand out .torrent files if asked (bencoded dictionaries that describe filenames, sizes, checksums, directory structures of a torrents contents) but they don't have to; mostly they hand out peer lists of other clients .. peers can also answer requests for .torrent files.
A .torrent file isn't enough to determine illegal content.
Pornography can be contained in files labelled "BeautifulSunset.mkv" and Rick Astley parody videos can frequently be found in files labelled "DirtyFilthyRepubicanFootTappingNudeAfrica.avi"
Given that it's not clear how trackers could effectively filter by content that never actually traverses their servers.
Oh ok, it seems to be a misconception of mine then.
Mathematically a tracker would offer a function that given a hash, it returns you a list of peers with that file.
While a "torrent site" like TPB or SH, would offer a search mechanism, whereby they would host an index, content hashes and english descriptors, along with a search engine.
A user would then need to first use the "torrent site" to enter their search terms, and find the hash, then they would need to give the hash to a tracker, which would return the list of peers?
Is that right?
In any case, each party in the transaction shares liability. If we were analyzing a drug case or a people trafficking case, each distributor, wholesaler or retailer would bear liability and face criminal charges. A legal defense of the type "I just connected buyers with sellers I never exchanged the drug" would not have much chance of succeding, although it is a common method to obstruct justice by complicating evidence gathering. (One member collects the money, the other gives the drugs.)
> A user would then need to first use the "torrent site" to enter their search terms, and find the hash, then they would need to give the hash to a tracker, which would return the list of peers?
> Is that right?
More or less.
> In any case, each party in the transaction shares liability.
That's exactly right Bob. Just as a telephone exchange shares liability for connecting drug sellers to drug buyers when given a phone number.
Clearly the telephone exchange should know by the number that the parties intend to discuss sharing child pornography rather than public access to free to air documentaries.
How do you propose that a telephone exchange vet phone numbers to ensure drugs are not discussed?
Bear in mind that in the case of a tracker the 'call' is NOT routed through the exchange.
With a proper telephone exchange the call data (voices) pass through the exchange equipment, with a tracker no actual file content passes through the trackers hardware.
The tracker, given a number, tells interested parties about each other .. they then talk directly to each other; be it about The Sky at Night -s2024e07- 2024-10-07 Question Time or about Debbie Does Donkeys.
Also keep in mind that trackers juggle a vast volume of connections of which a very small amount would be (say) child abuse related.
I'll restate the principle of good usage to bad usage ratio, telephone providers are a well established service with millions of legitimate users and uses. Furthermore they are a recognized service in law, they are regulated, and they can comply with law enforcement.
They are closer to the ISP, which according to my theory has some liability as well.
It's just a matter of the liability being small and the service to society being useful and necessary.
To take a spin to a similar but newer tech, consider crypto. My position is that its legality and liability for illegal usage of users (considering that of exchanges and online wallets, since the network is often not a legal entity) will depend on the ratio of legitimate to ilegitimate use that will be given to it.
There's definitely a second system effect, were undesirables go to the second system, so it might be a semantical difference unrelated to the technical protocols. Maybe if one system came first, or if by chance it were the most popular, the tables would be turned.
But I feel more strongly that there's design features that make law compliance, traceability and accountability difficult. In the case of trackers perhaps the microservice/object is a simple key-value store, but it is semantically associated with other protocols which have 'noxious' features described above AND are semantically associates with illegal material.
> I'll restate the principle of good usage to bad usage ratio, telephone providers are a well established service with millions of legitimate users and uses
Over 10 million torrents tracked daily, on the order of 300 thousand connections per second, handshaking between some 200 million peers per week.
That's material from the Internet Archive, software releases, pooled filesharing, legitimate content sharing via embedded clients that use torrents to share load, and a lot of TV and movies that have variable copyright status
( One of the largest TV|Movie sharing sites for decades recent closed down after the sole operator stopped bearing the cost and didn't want to take on dubious revenue sources; that was housed in a country that had no copyright agreements with the US or UK and was entirely legal on its home soil.
Another "club" MVGroup only rip documentaries that are "free to air" in the US, the UK, Japan, Australia, etc. and in 20 years of publicaly sharing publicaly funded content haven't had any real issues )
> the ISP, which according to my theory has some liability as well.
The world's a big place.
The US MPA (Motion Picture Association - the big five) backed an Australian mini-me group AFACT (Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft) to establish ISP liability in a G20 country as a beach head bit of legislation.
The alliance of 34 companies unsuccessfully claimed that iiNet authorised primary copyright infringement by failing to take reasonable steps to prevent its customers from downloading and sharing infringing copies of films and television programs using BitTorrent.
That was a three strikes total face plant:
The trial court delivered judgment on 4 February 2010, dismissing the application and awarding costs to iiNet.
An appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court was dismissed.
A subsequent appeal to the High Court was unanimously dismissed on 20 April 2012.
It set a legal precedent:
This case is important in copyright law of Australia because it tests copyright law changes required in the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement, and set a precedent for future law suits about the responsibility of Australian Internet service providers with regards to copyright infringement via their services.
It's also now part of Crown Law .. ie. not directly part of the core British Law body, but a recognised bit of Commonwealth High Court Law that can be referenced for consideration in the UK, Canada, etc.
> but it is semantically associated with other protocols which have 'noxious' features described above AND are semantically associates with illegal material.
Gosh, semantics hey. Some people feel in their waters that this is a protocol used by criminals and must therefore by banned or policed into non existance?
The list I gave was of some public trackers, I made no claim that they were zero knowledge trackers, I simply made a statement that trackers needn't be aware of .torrent file manifests in order to share peer lists.
I also indicated above that having knowledge of .torrent manifests is problematic as that doesn't provide real actual knowledge of file contents just knowledge of file names ... LatestActionMovie.mkv might be a rootkit virus and HappyBunnyRabbits.avi might be the worst most exploitative underage pornography you can think of.
Some trackers are also private and require membership keys to access.
I was skating a lot as TZubiri seems unaware of many of the actual details and legitimate use cases, existing law, etc.
I don't think TPB ever hosted any copyrighted content, even indirectly by its users. Torrent peers do not ever send any file contents through the tracker.
I don't get why there are still so many articles being written about Wordpress drama. There are no gotchas. Nobody can force Wordpress to provide anybody updates for free. You have all the right to enforce your trademarks if you think Wordpress wronged you.
Somehow, despite all of these articles, I still haven't seen a single one from WP Engine itself. I'm fairly sure they just deployed their own update repository in the deadline they were given and that was it. I have no idea where it will go from here, but I doubt it matters much.
I imagine a reason that WPEngine has been relatively quiet is that they have competent legal counsel who have advised them to remain silent. While WPE has let their lawyers handle things, Matt has refused to shut up and, consequently, has fueled the drama and arguably put himself in a worse position legally.
I wonder if they will ever say anything, though. I'm honestly kind of tired of seeing posts about WP drama on several different platforms, and this has been going on for weeks. I had to unsubscribe from #wordpress on Mastodon because almost every post was about this...
Anecdote: I was having trouble accessing wordpress.org. When I started using Wordpress, I could access the documentation just fine, but then suddenly I couldn't access the website anymore. I dual boot Linux, so it wasn't Windows fault. I could ping them just fine. I tried three different browsers with the same issue. It's just that when I accessed the website, it would get stuck and not load at all, and sometimes pages would just stop loading mid-way.
Today I found the solution. Disable "Experimental QUIC Protocol" in Chrome settings.
This makes me kind of worried because I've had issues accessing wordpress.org for months. There was no indication that this was caused by QUIC. I just managed to realize it because there was QUIC-related error in devtools that appeared only sometimes.
I wonder what other websites are rendered inaccessible by this protocol and users have no idea what is causing it.
Brazilians will not be pleased that their exclusive Brazilian social media will now have English-speaking users in it.
Jokes aside, I hope the new users understand the risks of federation as they get on board, specially the privacy risks: whom you block, follow, and who follows you is public information in the platform.
As far as I know the only platform that really supports that is Tumblr, which lets you create as many secondary blogs as you wish with just one e-mail address (and Youtube if you count it). For every other platform users will be impeded by the fact they have to create a second e-mail to create a second account because they don't know how to use e-mail folders.
You can't even switch accounts on Reddit which means you need to use a browser that supports switching cookie jars somehow.
In summary, I'm willing to bet the average user just posts everything on a single account.
And even if they used separate accounts, that doesn't change the fact that the blocks/follows of their identities isn't private.
This is mostly not a problem on the Fediverse (note: not Bluesky, since that is still pretty centralized). To make an alt for a different topic/identity/community/anything one can just pick another instance.
This is mostly not a problem on the Fediverse (note: not Bluesky, since that is still pretty centralized). To make an alt for a different topic/identity/community/anything one can just pick another instance.
One fun fact I found the other day: ASCII is 7 bits, but when it was used with punch cards there was an 8th bit to make sure you didn't punch the wrong number of holes. https://rabbit.eng.miami.edu/info/ascii.html
A 9-bit byte is found on 36-bit machines in quarter-word mode.
Parity is for paper tape, not punched cards. Paper tape parity was never standardized. Nor was parity for 8-bit ASCII communications. Which is why there were devices with settings for EVEN, ODD, ZERO, and ONE for the 8th bit.
Punched cards have their very own encodings, only of historical interest.
>A 9-bit byte is found on 36-bit machines in quarter-word mode.
I've only programmed in high level programming languages in 8-bit-byte machines. I can't understand what you mean by this sentence.
So in a 36-bit CPU a word is 36 bits. And a byte isn't a word. But what is a word and how does it differ from a byte?
If you asked me what 32-bit/64-bit means in a CPU, I'd say it's how large memory addresses can be. Is that true for 36-bit CPUs or does it mean something else? If it's something else, then that means 64-bit isn't the "word" of a 64-bit CPU, so what would the word be?
A word is the unit of addressing. A 36-bit machine has 36 bits of data stored at address 1, and another 36 bits at address 2, and so forth. This is inconvenient for text processing. You have to do a lot of shifting and masking. There's a bit of hardware help on some machines. UNIVAC hardware allowed accessing one-sixth of a word (6 bits), or one-quarter of a word (8 bits), or one-third of a word (12 bits), or a half of a word (18 bits). You had to select sixth-word mode (old) or quarter-word mode (new) as a machine state.
Such machines are not byte-addressable. They have partial word accesses, instead.
Machines have been built with 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 36, 48, 56, 60, and 64 bit word lengths.
Many "scientific" computers were built with 36-bit words and a 36-bit arithmetic unit.
This started with the IBM 701 (1952), although an FPU came later, and continued through the IBM 7094. The byte-oriented IBM System/360 machines replaced those, and made byte-addressable architecture the standard.
UNIVAC followed along with the UNIVAC 1103 (1953), which continued through the 1103A and 1105 vacuum tube machines, the later transistorized machines 1107 and 1108, and well into the 21st century. Unisys will still sell you a 36-bit machine, although it's really an emulator running on Intel Xeon CPUs.
The main argument for 36 bits was that 36-bit floats have four more bits of precision, or one more decimal digit, than 32-bit floats. 1 bit of sign, 8 bits of exponent and 27 bits of mantissa gives you a full 8 decimal digits of precision, while standard 32-bit floats with an 1 bit sign, 7-bit exponent and a 24 bit mantissa only give you 7 full decimal digits.
Double precision floating point came years later; it takes 4x as much hardware.
I see. I never realized that machines needed to be random number of bits because they couldn't do double-precision so it was easier to make the word larger and do "half" precision instead.
Thanks a lot for your explanation, but does that mean "byte" is any amount of data that can be fetched in a given mode in such machines?
e.g. you have 6-bit, 9-bit, 12-bit, and 18-bit bytes in a 36-bit machine in sixth-word mode, quarter-word mode, third-word mode, and half-word mode, respectively? Which means in full-word mode the "byte" would be 36 bits?
The term "byte" was introduced by IBM at the launch of the IBM System/360 in 1964. [1], which event also introduced the term "throughput". IBM never used it officially in reference to their 36-bit machines. By 1969, IBM had discontinued selling their 36-bit machines. UNIVAC and DEC held onto 36 bits for several more decades, though.
I don't think so. In the "normal" world, you can't address anything smaller than a byte, and you can only address in increments of a byte. A "word" is usually the size of the integer registers in the CPU. So the 36-bit machine would have a word size of 36 bits, and either six-bit bytes or nine-bit bytes, depending on how it was configured.
36 bits also gave you 10 decimal digits for fixed point calculations. My mom says that this was important for atomic calculations back in the 1950s - you needed that level of precision on the masses.
From the little I know about SVG, I wish there was an open source alternative to Inkscape that didn't support standard SVG but used a proprietary format instead.
Almost everything you need to create vector art, SVG doesn't support.
Multiple outlines in a single shape? No. Varying thickness in an outline? No. Rounded corners on arbitrary vertices? No. Non-destructive boolean operations? No. I'm not even sure SVG supports paragraphs.
Many of these Inkscape implements as live filters, which are saved as SVG extensions in the XML .svg file that nobody but Inkscape can properly load.
SVG is ridiculously bad as a creation format. It's a good format to export to, but as a backend and it's just insane. It's like using a single PNG file as a backend for your multi-layer 128bpp raster project.
I use Inkscape a lot but I can't help but notice that the best vector art illustration come from Affinity Designer, Corel Draw, and Adobe Illustrator. If you compare the quality of artwork made with proprietary tools to those made with Inkscape, it's very clear that Inkscape severely limits what artists can achieve. You can easily create complex illustrations in other tools that would be a nightmare to manage in Inkscape. Just compare how you clip something in Inkscape to how you do it in Affinity. It's ridiculous how different the two workflows are.
I also used CorelDraw for many years before moving on to Inkscape, and there were definitely some features that I still miss (e.g. better power clip behavior, blend shapes, etc). But I have came to appreciate Inkscape using SVGs because it allowed me to build my own tooling around it, I only needed libraries that can read and write XML.
SVG is maybe not the best format and Inkscape has many extensions that made their SVGs nonstandard (e.g. mesh gradient), but it is a fairly accessible format. I am not sure the gains promised by a proprietary format would be worth losing out on various SVG/XML tools.
> I wish there was an open source alternative to Inkscape that didn't support standard SVG but used a proprietary format instead.
It didn’t need be a proprietary format, it could just as well be a new open format. Inkscape could itself create an open format that they saved to by default and supported many features SVG does not. They they publish the specification for it. Done.
A format doesn’t need to be popular, in widespread use, or proprietary to be useful.
I also wonder if they could still base it off SVG, but just append to the spec for their own new format. It's just XML under the hood right? They already have all of the complex parsing set up for SVG XML documents.
If svgx files or whatever just had some non-svg node in the top level that contained all of the special inkscape-only info, you might even be able to keep it totally compatible with svg itself. (Just obviously, lacking the special inkscape features)
All of the things you mentioned can be done in SVG and I've done all of these things before.
For multiple lines just duplicate your shapes and group or even join them. For varying thickness you can duplicate your shape and layer them. Rounded corners are supported on every vertice so I'm not sure where are you geting that.
I'm not the OP you're replying to but I think you missed some of their points.
1) multiple outlines: with your strategy, you can no longer edit the shape as a single shape afterwards.
2) varying thickness: it sounds like you're thinking of thickness varying abruptly from one line segment to another, but remaining constant throughout one segment. I would like a feature where the stroke width varies continuously from one vertex to another, that is, get smoothly thicker or thinner.
3) you can only have rounded corners on every vertex or no vertex of a shape. You can't choose individually for each vertex.
I think these are all features that SVG would benefit from adding.
You might look into https://graphite.rs/ . MS Paint is about my digital art interface complexity limit, but I do read Graphite's blog posts and their app sounds really attractive for more serious artists
I haven't used Graphite, but from what I've seen it allows for non-destructive procedural editing using nodes (à la Blender), which Inkscape mostly doesn't do.
SVG 1.1 does not support wrapping (textflow). There are posts in stack-overflow on how to use a foreignObject (HTML) inside SVG to do the line wrapping.
SVG 1.2 apparently supports but I have never used it so I don't know.
How is clipping different in Affinity and in Inkskape? Having used only Inkscape and not Affinity, I don't find the workflow Inkskape is using problematic.
In affinity, you have something like a layer window with all your shapes, similar to layer and objects in Inkscape. The "layers" work like groups, so if you drag one shape into another shape, it gets clipped.
So say you want to make something like a wall with a tunnel/cave and a road in it. You can draw a rectnagle, a circle, put the circle inside the rectangle and it's clipped, then use a triangle for the road and put it inside the circle and it's clipped.
In Inkscape you need to select both shapes and use clip group. Which shape clips which depends on which shape is above the other. I can't tell you which one sould be above, by the way, because I never remember it. If you want to clip one shape by another shape that is already inside a clipping group, you have another problem because you need to double click the group to be able to selected the clipped shape. The more layers of clipping you have, the more you have to double click.
The layer structure is also different. In Affinity, the shape itself is the group and occupies only 1 line in the layers window. In Inkscape, every clipping group creates 3 entries in the objects window. One for the group itself, one for the shape at the background, and one for the shapes being clipped. So in Inkscape you have something like:
I'm very ignorant in these areas, but if you don't mind me asking - how would using a proprietary format solve issues for Inkscape, or an imagined alternative to Inkscape?
Do all the others (AD, CD, AI) use some proprietary format that makes their life easier? Is there no better alternative to SVG on the open source side of things?
A proprietary format would allow doing anything, without having to worry about how other programs will support it.
There’s a conflict between what is needed to simply display images, and what is needed for an ideal editable document.
A web browser doesn’t need the complexity of non destructive Boolean operations, but an editor program does. It can all be exported to SVG at the end once it doesn’t need to be edited anymore. Things like variable thickness outlines can just be turned in to filled Bézier curve shapes that happen to be the shape of the outline.
You don't have to have a proprietary format to do that.
You are doing the mistake of associating open format with standard format, which really are orthogonal concepts. Open format means the format specification is published under an open license. A standard format is one whose specification is maintained by a standards organization/body/consortium. It happens that most open formats are or end up being maintained by a standard body out of convenience[1] and because people often publish them in the open with the hope it will also be used by others but it doesn't have to be. You as developer of application foo can publish the spec of your .bar format on foo's website under an open license and do the fuck you want with it while not being limited by the potential slowness of a standard governing body.
[1] mostly to avoid multiple incompatible forked versions of the format being used with the same name and confusing others.
I don't think they are saying "proprietary" as in "secret, closed source", but just as in "custom format" that is built around one particular application.
The problem with SVG is the different demands between browser vendors and graphic editors. Browsers for example don't need pages to be in SVG, but it's unavoidable for proper graphic design tools. That makes the advancement of an open format a lot harder, and AFAIK Inkscape devs have thought of extending SVG into their own format (in a talk at LGM).
I suspect you could achieve a similar result with a standard specification format for vector graphics. You just need to be open to extensions for prototyping features. See open *OpenRaster.
The issue with using SVG is it's not meant for use as data exchange in vector graphics editors but for web publishing.
So you are asking for an authoring tool that has a format that can do what SVG can't and then show examples of how Inkscape can do that? What exactly are you missing then? Is the problem that Inkscape SVG has SVG in the name?
> From the little I know about SVG, I wish there was an open source alternative to Inkscape that didn't support standard SVG but used a proprietary format instead.
Maybe Flash will become popular again at some point, so a well heeled enthusiast (or group of) could buy the source for the Flash Authoring tool from Adobe then release it as OSS. :)
Are you creatively crippled by not being able to create multiple outlines on a single shape on a file format that can be viewed in almost any device from here to eternity at no cost? Cause you know Michelangelo didn't use procreate in a iPad...do you?
And the cavemen drawing on walls before Michelangelo didn't have paintbrushes, complex pigments and cathedrals to paint on? Heaven forbid we make better tools.
Considering those operations are available in other vector art tools that aren't constrained by directly using SVG as the fundamental editing format it seems like a reasonable complaint.
This is my complaint about the current state of developer tools. You can buy beautiful tools to make a beautiful chest of drawers or a chair. We are, or at least were, trying to paint the Sistine Chapel with finger paints.
Maybe if we surrounded ourselves with beautiful and sensible tools it would be easier for us to write beautiful or sensible applications. Maybe there would be fewer dancing bears.
I saw a guy on youtube complaining about it. He seemed to talk about FLOSS a lot and focus on the strict definition of "open source."
I checked his github profile and he barely published anything.
So here we have a company that made all of the code of a complete application source available being dunked by a guy who barely published any source code at all.
You do realize that GitHub is not the only place people can share code and that even on github not all contributions will be visible on your profile? Many notable open source developers don't even have a GitHub profile at all or just a dummy one to prevent others from claiming their commits because GitHub allows that without verifying email ownership.
The article begins with
>The Wired article by David Gilbert
Acknowledging that there is a real person called David Gilbert who wrote the article and it wasn't just an amalgamation known as "Wired" who did. Yet later it says:
>Wired just a month earlier encouraged its readers to adopt encrypted messaging apps, making its current stance even more contradictory.
But that article was written by Lauren Goode and Michael Calore.
If Wired had a stance in this, it would be exercising editorial control, which some would criticize for censoring the authors. Instead, Wired publishes whatever its authors write, and then some criticize for writing contradictory articles.
If I was Wired I'd just shrug because you can't win.