True and uv will probbaly never brings non python deps on the table.
But anaconda doesn't do inline deps, isn't a consitent experience (the typical conda project doesn't exist), is it's own island incompatible with most python ecosystem, is super slow, the yaml config is very quirky, and it's very badly documented while having poor ergonomics.
In short, anaconda solves many of those problems but brings other ones on the table.
I don't really understand this Twitter (or in general social media) censorship argument. If I call someone on the street a fckin idiot I probably get slapped or even shot in certain places, and everybody will say I called for it. And even without physical violence I can get slapped with a lawsuit and forced to pay damages. Now if I do the same on social media it's suddenly all "muh liberty of expression" if anyone reacts to it. Aren't we maybe having the wrong expectations online, that it would be somehow supporting all the shit we cannot do in real life? Okay I realize this ship already sailed and online people do online all shit not allowed offline, but I rather see the situation as a miserable failure of law enforcement, and not as a hard won right to be an ass to your fellow citizens.
What country do you live in? In the USA, you can say “I think person X is an idiot”. That’s protected speech. No one can sue you for expressing your opinion online or IRL. If someone punches you in the face for calling them an idiot on the street, then they are likely going to get prosecuted for those actions. Yes you run the risk of getting punched in the face but you are not in any trouble with the law.
OTOH it’s a problem if you say “Person X is a rapist”. Then you might get sued for libel. You can’t make false statements to destroy someone’s reputation.
Censorship online on a social media platform is not subject to any freedom of speech laws. Freedom of speech only applies to the US Government not restricting your speech. The social media platform has the authority to regulate speech however they want to on their platform.
> You can’t make false statements to destroy someone’s reputation.
This is something that people seem to expect to be able to do on social media. I think maybe that's part of the point that was being made. People don't want social networks that are concerned with stopping libelous remarks from going viral. In fact, it seems like people would love a social network that consists exclusively of libelous remarks.
The weird thing is that social networks seem to actually be willing to deliver this content.
> No one can sue you for expressing your opinion online or IRL
In the USA, you can absolutely be sued for this. The plaintiff is unlikely to win, and you could probably get the case dismissed if you convince a judge that's it's clearly an opinion, but you'd still have to pay a lawyer some fees.
People can sue you for anything.
The first amendment doesn't protect you from lawsuits. It protects you from the government putting you in jail for speech.
I don't really get why people point this out. Yes, you can be sued for anything. But what are you actually suggesting? That you do nothing, ever, because you could be sued for anything? Or are we just doing the same old nitpick?
Pointing out that the statement is false in the most uninteresting literal sense is just odd. Sure, you can be sued for that in the same sense that you can be sued for eating a croissant. Glad we got to the bottom of that.
I like the idea, but it should be a separate product, not an IDE.
Make it a Python runner with a visualization tool and independent from an IDE.
You will not have to catch up with the big IDEs, no need to maintain the IDE code, you get people using different IDEs to adopt your products and they can keep their tooling.
Yes, although I've never used capnproto, I believe the approach it takes is similar: you define your schema, it generates code to do the serialization and to handle the RPCs.
The US, through the Intel ME software, already got a backdoor in most laptop. Using PRISM, it also had one on most big Saas, and now that it's over, it probably has a similar one we don't know about given Snowden's revelations about xkeyscore and how it works.
It's very likely they also have a backdoor in Apple phone with a gag order, given Apple was part of PRISM and we can't check their proprietary system.
We also know China has backdoors to any software or hardware product you want to sell there.
So it is a problem that the UK is asking for this for us, but from their perspective, they are just catching up with the current horrible state of things.
> very likely they also have a backdoor in Apple phone with a gag order, given Apple was part of PRISM
People keep repeating this as if PRISM was a voluntary, or even secretly cooperative, program.
PRISM was no such thing. PRISM was the US govt snarfing up whatever data they could (under questionable legal authority), but no one has ever alleged that the data they were snarfing was provided willingly or knowingly by Google, Apple, etc.
These companies are also victims of PRISM, not participants.
All have explicitly refuted claims of any backdoor into their systems. There is no evidence that they are lying, or being forced to lie.
> People keep repeating this as if PRISM was a voluntary, or even secretly cooperative, program. PRISM was no such thing.
Wheres the evidence to say they had no idea about it and it was purely an external hacking effort?
> All have explicitly refuted claims of any backdoor into their systems. There is no evidence that they are lying, or being forced to lie.
Except all the previous times they have lied because the government asked them to. Like the time they willingly gave all users push notifications to the US government and then lied and said they didn't, until it leaked and they admitted they did and then openly spoke about how the government had forced them to keep quiet about it.
PRISM collects stored internet communications based on demands made to internet companies such as Google LLC and Apple under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 to turn over any data that match court-approved search terms.
Sorry, I should have been more explicit. Of course all US companies comply with US court orders.
The controversial new revelation re: PRISM, via Snowden, was that NSA was also snarfing everything they could including unencrypted comms over frame relay/etc networks comprising, e.g., Google's internal inter-site networks.
To which all mentioned companies said "we were not aware of this, we never authorized a backdoor for LE at any level, this is a breach of trust and probably not legal, and now we'll encrypt everything between our internal systems too".
If they can ask whatever they want (they had secret courts that could provide any legal request), they have a massive data acquisition apparatus, they had many backdoors they actively used, and big companies complied while being silenced by a gag order, assuming they have direct backdoors provided officially today that we don't know about, and that companies with proprietary systems we can't check can't talk about, is just common sense at this point.
Why would you give them the benefit of the doubt when the 2 last decades of track record have given you all the reason not to, and that the next step is the logical conclusion?
Lions kill gazelles. But not this specific gazelle because I like this one?
But anyway, the point is moot, they don't even need to for this particular debate. They already have a lot. The UK therefor not matching them exactly is just them using a slightly parallel road for the same result.
It's a terrible thing either way for us. But I get the logic for them.
Oh, I don't trust any of the actors. But I trust the encryption math.
If the argument is that the encryption is compromised by weak factors or key escrow etc, then that is a really interesting conversation, on which I'd like to hear more informed opinions.
But if all we can do is speculate, my trust remains in the mathematics.
Python is a very old tech (v1 in 1991), but you won't have a hard time finding a job because the popularity of the language has been kept up first with the web, then with data analysis and now with AI.
Also, the more something has been out there, the more legacy there is to maintain. There is no shortage of PHP or Java jobs. Sure they are not sexy, but you'll have work.
1. If the deps are also themselves reproducible then you refer to a fixed point version of them and (at least for nix) the package manager works out the rest.
2. Signatures are a trust mechanism, if a cache feeds you bad data in response to a query then that's absolutely an issue, but since there can be multiple caches (or your own local spot-checks) it becomes easier to detect if a cache is returning bad data. A hyper-targetted attack would still get you unless you decide to manually build certain packages, but that's no different than existing repos.
Manually building might sound impractical but it doesn't actually take that long, probably less than a day for a desktop environment, which might acceptable in a high-trust environment if amortized. I should add that the process is fully automatic, it just takes longer than using a cache.
3. Moderation I don't have a good answer to, anyone can run an apt server, or publish a flake.nix file to a repo. Some would say it is censorship resistant.
Should work fine if the training set is a memory-safe, full-featured, monolithoc, Unix-like operating system kernel originally written by a certain Linus Torvalds.
But anaconda doesn't do inline deps, isn't a consitent experience (the typical conda project doesn't exist), is it's own island incompatible with most python ecosystem, is super slow, the yaml config is very quirky, and it's very badly documented while having poor ergonomics.
In short, anaconda solves many of those problems but brings other ones on the table.