tpmoney

23 ms·

271.
by tpmoney 11mo ago
ffmpeg is already LGPL / GPLv2. How does the license choice factor into this at all?
272.
by tpmoney 11mo ago
So to be clear, if Google doesn't include patches, you would rather they don't make bugs they find in software public so other people can fix them? That is, you'd rather a world where Google either does know about a vulnerabi
273.
by tpmoney 11mo ago
So no one should file public bug reports for open source software?
274.
by tpmoney 11mo ago
> When you publicize a vulnerability you know someone doesn't have the capacity to fix according to the requested timeline, you are simultaneously increasing the visibility of the vulnerability and name-calling the maintainers. So h
275.
by tpmoney 11mo ago
Since when are bug reports blackmail? If some retro game enthusiast discovered this bug and made a blog post about it that went to the front page of HN, is that blackmail? If someone running a fuzzer found this bug and dumped a public bug r
276.
by tpmoney 11mo ago
But how are those companies supposed to know they need to do anything unless someone finds and publicly reports the issue in the first place? Surely we're not advocating for a world where every vendor downstream of the ffmpeg project i
277.
by tpmoney 11mo ago
Great, so Google is actively spending money on making open source projects better and more secure. And for some reason everyone is now mad at them for it because they didn't also spend additional money making patches themselves. We can
278.
by tpmoney 11mo ago
How is having a disclosure policy so that you balance the tradeoffs between informing people and leaving a bug unreported "holding" anything over the heads of the maintainers? They could just file public bug reports from the begin
279.
by tpmoney 11mo ago
What's "strictly legal or required" of Google here is absolutely nothing. They didn't have to do any auditing or bug hunting. They certainly didn't have to validate or create a proper bug report, and there's no
280.
by tpmoney 11mo ago
But if no bug report is filed, then only google gets the ability to "be responsible for their own security", everyone else either has to independently discover and then patch the bug themselves, or wait until upstream discovers th
281.
by tpmoney 11mo ago
On the other hand, if the bug doesn't get filed, it doesn't get fixed. Sure Google could spend some resources on fixing it themselves, but even if they did would we not likely see a complaint about google flooding the maintainers
282.
by tpmoney 11mo ago
I get that the ffmpeg people have limited time and resources, I get that it would be nice if Google (or literally anyone else) patched this themselves and submitted that upstream. But "everyone else down stream of us should compile out
283.
by tpmoney 11mo ago
“Core performance” only matters relative to what the company is selling you though. For example let’s say a company sells 2 tiers of switch. One does 10G and the other 1G. For whatever reason when they start selling these, it’s cheapest for
284.
by tpmoney 11mo ago
On the other hand, there’s a good argument to be made that if you think the judiciary can be captured for political ends, a trial and verdict by your peers at least gives you the opportunity to get a fair(er) shot. And in many (most?) US ju
285.
by tpmoney 11mo ago
It’s only fraud if they sold you or marketed to you on those specs. But at least for things like reflashing your router, short of a few explicit opener vendors (like glinet) and Linksys AFTER releasing the WRTGL version, router manufacturer
286.
by tpmoney 1y ago
We’ve been down this road before. Wikipedia was going to be the knowledge apocalypse. How were you going to be able to trust what you read when anyone can edit it if you don’t already know the truth. And we learned the limits. Broadly verif
287.
by tpmoney 1y ago
But you can expect to learn in both cases. Just like you often learn from your own failures. Learning doesn’t require that you’re given the right answer, just that it’s possible for you to obtain the right answer
288.
by tpmoney 1y ago
> Neither Matter nor Matter-over-Thread require Internet access. The protocols themselves might not but as a warning to people looking for “matter” as an indicator they can have local only control, apparently the matter spec doesn’t requ
289.
by tpmoney 1y ago
My pie in the sky pitch is the US Government (and others) should solve this, the legality and the compensation problems in a single swoop. Make submission of your work to a federal model data set a requirement for obtaining copyright protec
290.
by tpmoney 1y ago
That's certainly an argument often made about counterfeit goods, and it can certainly be true in cases (and counterfeiting has other problems, namely confusing the origin of a specific good when that matters to the consumer), but it&#x
291.
by tpmoney 1y ago
> But that's the issue, isn't it? Someone has bought a legitimate copy and put it on Napster with the intention of providing copies to people when it's fair use. To the best of my understanding of the law, making whole cop
292.
by tpmoney 1y ago
They said "controlling for demographics", which seems to imply pretty strongly that income is a controlled for variable if it's part of the "demographics" model. To get a better answer, you'd probably have to d
293.
by tpmoney 1y ago
> For NAS, the demographics model includes baseline age, being white, being married, education, family income , and father’s occupation. Not wealth specifically, but income is probably as good of a controlling factor.
294.
by tpmoney 1y ago
OpenAI's hypocrisy on this matter is precisely why hackers should be taking this as the best opportunity we've had in decades to scale back the massive expansions that Disney et al have managed to place on copyright. But instead o
295.
by tpmoney 1y ago
My argument is better framed that this: > "stealing the work of every single artist, living and dead, for the sole purpose of making a profit" is begging the question. The phrase "stealing" inherently presumes a crime
296.
by tpmoney 1y ago
I believe we’re in violent agreement here, because my point was that all 4 aspects are equally important and they need to be evaluated as a whole. And further that the current legal rulings on these systems delve into each of those parts wi
297.
by tpmoney 1y ago
In Judge Alsup's case, it largely hinged on whether you had a right to the initial copy in the first place. If I read (and recall) his ruling correctly, the initial pirated copy (that is, downloading from a source that didn't have
298.
by tpmoney 1y ago
All of these apply to emulators. * The use is commercial (a number of emulators are paid access, and the emulator case that carved out the biggest fair use space for them was Connectix Virtual Game Station a very explicitly commercial produ
299.
by tpmoney 1y ago
It's not a stretch because I'm not claiming they're the same thing, I'm incrementally walking the tech stack to try and find where we would want to draw the line. If things something has to be generative in order to be a
300.
by tpmoney 1y ago
What change? Regardless of why the USDA decided to remind people of this, these rules on SNAP benefits and equal treatment have been part of the law since before Trump took office.

More ›