otterley

14 ms·

331.
by otterley 2mo ago
> Given my comments were in the top ten highest voted of the day One comment was, and that was your most inflammatory. Those tend to attract the most attention. The trick now is to expand that brief popularity on HN (which is a very na
332.
by otterley 2mo ago
> Tens of billions of dollars of infrastructure run on top of stagex Oh, this I've got to see. Show us the receipts.
333.
by otterley 2mo ago
If you say so. *shrug*
334.
by otterley 2mo ago
Look, you own the things you say and are responsible for their accuracy. Attacking people who rightfully correct your misinformed assertions and who want to steer you in a direction that will actually be effective in achieving your aims a
335.
by otterley 2mo ago
> Are you really suggesting that armed conflict would be a better option here? Of course not. I'm simply refuting your assertion that "mockery is...the best weapon against authoritarianism." > If mockery weren’t an effe
336.
by otterley 2mo ago
Stealing is not a word that applies only to physical objects.
337.
by otterley 2mo ago
Historically, armed conflict has proved to be the best weapon against authoritarianism, not mere mockery. The American Colonies had to fight a war to gain independence from Britain. The Third Reich was defeated by Allied soldiers. The Japan
338.
by otterley 2mo ago
> But I am not a lawyer or a politician Neither is Prof. Bernstein. The observation is not oriented to lawyers or politicians; it is oriented towards how to succeed when judges and politicians make the rules.
339.
by otterley 2mo ago
> Anyone should be free to research, discuss, and try to understand the law for themselves. Lawyers do not own the law. This isn't mere research and discussion; it's suggesting an outcome (i.e., "you're safe[r]")
340.
by otterley 3mo ago
Stop it. This is not something either of you are competent to provide legal advice about. Anyone concerned about this should consult a licensed attorney, not get advice from randos on HN.
341.
by otterley 3mo ago
Don’t read too much into the Apple case. There was no precedent set by that. The FBI withdrew their demands after they found a different mechanism to obtain what they needed.
342.
by otterley 3mo ago
"Don't be an Internet Tough Guy" is among my friendly advice. People can see right through it, and it often works against you.
343.
by otterley 3mo ago
1. Civil disobedience has worked when the timing and circumstances are right, and there is a just cause and clear pattern of oppression that engages the sympathies of a broad swath of people. That is rare. Most of the time, civil disobedien
344.
by otterley 3mo ago
I've read the room. I think I'm okay.
345.
by otterley 3mo ago
This may be a matter of semantics. To me, a “valid defense” is a defense that always prevails—for example, that truth is a defense to a defamation claim in U.S. law. The rest, I call “possible defenses.” Another possible definition, one you
346.
by otterley 3mo ago
I am ok with this. Sometimes a lawyer doesn't want certain clients, either.
347.
by otterley 3mo ago
I'm not your attorney; I don't owe you a duty of confidentiality. You're not being discreet at all; you brought up your prior incarceration, presumably in the hopes that it would help you prevail in this discussion. By so doi
348.
by otterley 3mo ago
I'm happy to let the court of public opinion settle this one.
349.
by otterley 3mo ago
My "personal fantasy"? Give me a break. You've gone off the rails. You're not the hero saving the world that you make yourself out to be. Get over yourself. I'm done with this thread.
350.
by otterley 3mo ago
So which was it?
351.
by otterley 3mo ago
Are you seriously comparing the "oppression" of a programmer who is forbidden from distributing an OS that fails to ask the user's age to the actual oppression of Black people in the United States before the Civil Rights
352.
by otterley 3mo ago
> No one is being convicted and doing hard time for refusing to add age verification to a Linux distro. That's not the point. The point is that people who don't face a real possibility of being convicted and imprisoned are the
353.
by otterley 3mo ago
Comparing the "oppression" of a programmer who is forbidden from distributing an OS that fails to ask the user's age to the actual suffering of Black people in the U.S., who were regularly discriminated against and even lynch
354.
by otterley 3mo ago
Not at all! I think these laws are dumb and I don't want my state to pass one. But when I play, I play to win. Openly thumbing one's nose at the courts and the state is rarely a winning strategy. The way to win is through the de
355.
by otterley 3mo ago
Yes, Junger v. Daley held that source code is speech for the purpose of First Amendment analysis in the Sixth Circuit. (The question has not yet been presented to the Supreme Court.) But the inquiry doesn't stop there. First Amendmen
356.
by otterley 3mo ago
Incarcerated temporarily (e.g. awaiting trial or a prosecution decision), or actually convicted and sentenced to imprisonment? These two things are not the same.
357.
by otterley 3mo ago
Those are valid opinions. However, I also see a lot of bluster here about going to prison for their beliefs from people who wouldn't last a minute behind bars.
358.
by otterley 3mo ago
It is you who needs to do your research. That was not PGP. The Bernstein case was about Snuffle. In that very same case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said: "We emphasize the narrowness of our First Amendment holding. We do n
359.
by otterley 3mo ago
Same way anything else gets pulled from distribution. You shut down the servers, destroy keys, remove files, etc. Sure, the files may remain in circulation from unofficial sources, but that's not your problem, as long as you're no
360.
by otterley 3mo ago
> hoping you are never forced to add code to a project you do not want to add You keep saying that, but that's not the realistic outcome. The realistic outcome isn't an injunction forcing you to add code. It'd be to force

More ›