lijok

29 ms·

631.
by lijok 3y ago
Are unregulated industries that much better for the society? Crypto doesn't seem to be too hot for the consumer right now
632.
by lijok 3y ago
I'm sure there would be a few, high quality commenters whose risk appetite was sufficient for them to post high quality comments confidently
633.
by lijok 3y ago
Bad for whom?
634.
by lijok 3y ago
Yeah, it would be pretty bad for my wallet. Would make me reconsider posting low quality comments going forward, potentially increasing the quality of the forum long term.
635.
by lijok 3y ago
Better for whom?
636.
by lijok 3y ago
Nope - actual full time compliance officers. First thing those companies did was apply for regulatory permission.
637.
by lijok 3y ago
Haha, you're right. It went right over my head. I'd be happy to pay for their ibuprofen if they can prove the adverse effect my comment had, and if it continues having adverse effects, I'll make sure to take my comment down o
638.
by lijok 3y ago
No - I mean something like a banner at the top of the README or at the homepage of the documentation that states, as boldly as feasible, something along the lines of "THIS IS A PROOF OF CONCEPT/DEMO/FOR EDUCATION PURPOSES ONL
639.
by lijok 3y ago
That's interesting. Every startup I've ever worked at, the chief compliance officer & mlro was one of the first 2-3 employees to get hired (as far as I can recall).
640.
by lijok 3y ago
No, as in that scenario the knife is not being used for its intended purpose
641.
by lijok 3y ago
So compliance officers don't exist, or am I misunderstanding what you're trying to say?
642.
by lijok 3y ago
You seem very intent on labelling legal obligations as being forced to do something. That, at least to me, is a clear mischaracterization of the issue at hand.
643.
by lijok 3y ago
You're thinking in absolute terms. I think that might be the source of the disagreement. I am not advocating that it should be illegal to publish OSS unless you can mathematically prove it is faultless. I am advocating that if you are
644.
by lijok 3y ago
> should I interpret this as you agreeing that you will force me to provide guarantees for open source software I do make? Yes. However, the way you use the term "force me", at least to me, implies an unjust enforcement of a la
645.
by lijok 3y ago
Fully agree
646.
by lijok 3y ago
That does not mean the consumer (the builder) is absolved of any responsibility, nor does it mean that the product of the builder using the poor quality materials is of good quality itself.
647.
by lijok 3y ago
Do you think that perhaps an increased need for compliance officers would create more compliance jobs, thereby creating jobs and reducing the scale and money required to tackle legislation and compliance?
648.
by lijok 3y ago
No. I am suggesting that you should not be producing goods for public consumption unless you are able to provide guarantees. Noone's going to force you to provide guarantees for goods you did not produce.
649.
by lijok 3y ago
> Who is ever certain? How certain are you? How willing to endure false claims are you, even if miraculously you have convinced yourself the work is flawless? If you're not certain and unwilling to fight false claims, just don'
650.
by lijok 3y ago
I welcome you to debate it.
651.
by lijok 3y ago
> Don't blame me for not building the house to code, blame the guy who made my nails, fasteners, and lumber. I'll blame you for using poor quality nails, fasteners and lumber.
652.
by lijok 3y ago
I'll amend my comment as it seems to have confused a few folk on the meaning of "public". Yes you should be able to say "don't use this", "for education purposes only", "this is a demonstration&q
653.
by lijok 3y ago
You misunderstood my comment. I am not suggesting that you be forced to provide guarantees.
654.
by lijok 3y ago
> There is a reason why the open-source world has concerns: the legislation indirectly defines who is responsible for the security of open source and who should pay to improve the current state. In addition, it puts the responsibility on
655.
by lijok 3y ago
It will not. In fact, it might even create jobs and a better ecosystem for developers to work in. Good OSS will become commercial software, which will be upheld to a significantly higher standard.
656.
by lijok 3y ago
> Turns out, their concurrency control is a poor-man's version of Left-Right > Obviously, it's a bit sad when due credit is not given where it should be, but smart readers have added to the blog's comments and on hacker
657.
by lijok 3y ago
This article reads like the ramblings of a security absolutist that's unfamiliar with the concept of a threat model. Yes, the cloud is not perfectly secure, breaches happen and customer data gets leaked. No, overwhelming majority of pe
658.
by lijok 3y ago
> And before you say well there are costs involved with finding people that have the skills to do that kind of thing and time needed to set all of that up, yes that is true, but our industry has moved from one bucket to another one that
659.
by lijok 3y ago
> Now, it's flipped. Hardware is pretty cheap. There are high quality OSS products that have easy-to-manage, native HA capabilities. It's no longer impractical to operate a production-ready deployment for a few hundred dollars.
660.
by lijok 3y ago
One thing is clear - most developers are really bad at structuring their patches. I think it makes sense. We spend a lot of time trying to make the code work, and then we're faced with having to spend just as much time submitting the c

More ›