Western countries got ‘lobbying’

The term “lobbying” doesn’t mean corruption. It means basically have meetings with stakeholders to discuss issues regarding policy and agenda.

If you hold a meeting with your local city council asking for a crosswalk, you’re engaged in lobbying. If you chat with the local police chief asking for more patrols in some part or another of town, you’re engaged in lobbying.

Now, lobbying might set the stage for corruption. If you’re talking to your city council about the need for a crosswalk and you show a video of cars speeding by an intersection, that’s ok. If instead you tell your city councilman that if he hires your construction company to build that crosswalk then you’ll pay him a wad of cash, that’s corruption.

Lobbying is not corruption. It’s weird how the basis of any democratic system is attacked for being “corruption” to try to justify corruption in corrupt hellholes.

For Signal, no.

There is an argument to make about using custom versions of Signal that route their traffic through your own infrastructure.

This would count as France running their own service.

Given that Signal relies on centralized servers to route traffic, and if I’m not mistaken they use AWS in US instances, this means that your Signal traffic is being fed straight into the US security services’ infrastructure. France might be a staunch ally of the US, but they do go through great lengths to preserve their independence.

I’m not a proponent of any backdoors like this.

I’m not sure you got the gist of what I said. The point I made was that if being the host nation of an organization meant that their government can add backdoors at will, using any foreign service would automatically mean you’d be snooped by external actors.

Regardless of where you stand on whether you want to add your own backdoor or not, by your own logic using a foreign service means your services are already compromised.

If that’s the case, wouldn’t it make sense to simply run your own stuff?

A far better reason not to use WhatsApp is that it is run by Facebook. It was also a primary vector for Pegasus.

Aren’t you doubling down on the government of France’s position?

I mean, the french minister did explicitly stated that “[you] cannot guarantee the security of conversations and information shared via them”.

France wants backdoors into these apps, it’s not a lack of trust thing.

If it’s trivial for a host nation to add backdoors to instant messaging services, you’d be agreeing with the government of France and you’d be pressing to migrate your communication out of the hand of third parties.

To start Europe should have secure phones made in EU.

Doesn’t switching instant messaging services count as a start? Switching hardware is far harder than switching software.

Also, local messaging systems also determine where your traffic goes and who controls that data. If you have a french messaging service with data centers in france routing traffic between people in France, you are in a far better shape.

My first thought was “a hwat now?”

That’s exactly what made me click on the link.

I guess it counts as a portfolio project, but I’m not seeing any usecase that fits this tool.

I understand. I have to admit I felt a little dirty after pasting that text.

(…) it was "because the organizer wants big names and it probably seemed like an easy way to address their diversity concerns.

Wouldn’t it be easier to, say, invite real people to deliver real talks? How exactly is it easier to spend multiple years maintaining sock puppet accounts than simply sporadically extend an invitation to someone?

why not just buy a proper charger waste $50 ?

It seems to be a combination of both things. They believe that switching will attract contributors and make it more modern… but also they seem to have had some trouble with thread safety in C++ that would have required them to do some restructuring anyway.

It still feels like at best they are optimizing for the wrong metric and at worse they are just trying to rationalize an arbitrary choice.

I mean, the first reason they point out is “high probability of still being relevant in a decade.” I mean, is Rust even a candidate in this domain? All leading programming languages have been around for longer than Rust and are actually specified in international standards, which ensures they will be around for essentially all eternity. Rust provides nothing of the sort. Is there anyone willing to put their hands in the fire for the expectation they will be able to build today’s Rust projects a decade from now?

Also, Rust is renowned for having a steep and tough learning curve. Those are hardly the traits you seek to increase your potential userbase.

More importantly, threading stuff is limited to key architecture components that once in place are expected to change little to nothing. It’s like picking .NET because you think it supports background processes well. Except the bulk of your code changes won’t touch that, so what’s the point?

Anyway, anyone is free to invest their time and effort in any venture without having to explain their motivations to anyone.

I love the idea of being able to fit 4 big D’s

I’m more interested in knowing whether the charger actually supports that type of usage.

Eduards Sizovs, the DevTernity organizer accused of making up fake female speakers, felt it was the right PR move to post this message on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/eduardsi/status/1728447955122921745

So I’ve been called out (and canceled?) by listing a person on my conference’s website (who never actually made it to the final program). JUST A RANDOM PERSON ON THE CONFERENCE WEBSITE canceled all the good work I’ve been doing for 15+ years. All focus on that.

I said it was a mistake, a bug that turned out to be a feature. I even fixed that on my website! We’re cool? Nooooo, we want blood! Let’s cancel this SINNER!

The amount of hate and lynching I keep receiving is as if I would have scammed or killed someone. But I won’t defend myself because I don’t feel guilty. I did nothing terrible that I need to apologize for. The conference has always delivered on its promise. It’s an awesome, inclusive, event. And yes, I like Uncle Bob’s talks. They’re damn good.

When the mob comes for you, you’re alone. So, let it be. I’ll keep doing a great conference. With all speakers, half the speakers, or I’ll be speaking alone on all tracks and lose my voice. But the event will be a blast. Like always. I’ll die while doing great work. But the mob won’t kill me.

I don’t think that tone-deaf is the right word for this.

From the article:

“To spell it out why this conference generated fake women speakers,” Orosz alleges, it was “because the organizer wants big names and it probably seemed like an easy way to address their diversity concerns. Incredibly lazy.”

How hard is it for these organizers to actually reach out to women developers and extend an invite to talk about any topic they are interested in? In the very least, there are tons of high-profile bloggers who are vocal about things and stuff. Even though women are severely outnumbered, you almost need to go way out of your way to avoid actually extending an invite to a woman in the field.

You used the wrong search bar, you just used the one for the file list.

The fact that one of the excuses for GitHub search results being subpar is that there is a right and a wrong search bar is already telling.

must have been a half ass attempt

How hard do you need to try to use a feature for it to be considered decent? Do you expect something as basic as a search to put up a fight?

The biggest news to me is that GitHub allows users to search code. Every single time I tried to search something in GitHub, search results were next to completely useless, and always a sure-fire waste of time and effort.

There’s hope, I guess.

Yeah, there is no standard.

If you read the README.md file, you’ll stumble onto the next paragraph right at its start.

This is a basic layout for Go application projects. It’s not an official standard defined by the core Go dev team; however, it is a set of common historical and emerging project layout patterns in the Go ecosystem. (…)

I don’t like this repo and I’ve been recommending people avoid it for years.

Unless you have a better reference that you can provide in place of this one, I don’t think you’re doing anyone any good. People use these documents for guidance, and no guidance at all is clearly not a better alternative to a concrete example whose worst traits is not fitting someone’s vague, subjective opinion.

They used it because it was an established term

My graph theory is a bit fuzzy but I think that the definition of a branch in a directed graph corresponds to the path between two nodes/vertices. This means that by definition any path from the root node to any vertex is itself a branch.

I don’t think Git invented this concept, nor did any other version control system.

I know that “branch” helps intuitively and visually when it’s actually an offshoot with one root and a dangling tip, like an actual tree branch…

I think that your personal definition of a branch doesn’t correspond to what graph theory calls a branch. Anyone please correct me if I’m wrong.

ASP.NET? The microsoft technology? That runs mostly on IIS?

No, by ASP.NET I was referring to ASP.NET Core, whose latest LTS version was released along .NET 8.

I find it absurd to make a plaidoyer to all git users to add another file to their repo to placate those unable, unwilling, or ignorant to adhere the standard.

You only speak for yourself, and your comment clearly showed you were ignorant of some basic usecases that are behind the feature you were criticizing.