cube

@gullok@mastodon.social @Nawer_Rapter@mastodon.social @joho@mastodon.online if you can mandate that a specific type of content needs age verification on the internet, and at the same time you can force any service on the internet to give you all personal data that they collect (which the US surveillance machine frequently does), then you can build up databases of "undesirable citizens" or force them to go silent on the internet. And once those databases exist, they _will_ be used for the worst possible use. Like IBM in the 1940s.

@dzwiedziu@mastodon.social @Hex@kolektiva.social @9mmBallpoint@mastodon.social damn it, I forgot the title of the song (or short story ?) about piling all of our waste and dead bodies on top of the billionaire bunkers

@phryk@mastodon.social I want all of these things too, but I think the best chance we would have is retrofitting an old toughbook shell with framework internals

@csepp @beecycling @TheBreadmonkey I would assume that driverless vehicles can absolutely be safer than the "average driver", but that is mostly an indictment on the average driver. The real benchmarks would be a comparison to professional drivers.

@ramsey @KevinFreitas @mike @asrg @marcusb @Fingel @aaron it should be possible to slow-loris them, e.g. transfer crawler connections on the server side to some low-power round-robin scheme that transmits just enough bytes per second to keep the connection alive, saving bandwidth on your end while wasting their connection-time.

@ocdtrekkie@mastodon.social @JohnDal@mastodon.green @erkhyan@yiff.life For me, elegant software is primitive, limited in scope, modular and well documented. But this is a debate that goes back to Unix vs VMS and probably even further. I don't think I can convince you of my viewpoint, and I don't wish the psychological torture of having to know about the intricacies of the concept of a "NET_BUFFER_LIST" on anyone.

@ocdtrekkie@mastodon.social @JohnDal@mastodon.green @erkhyan@yiff.life honestly, I disagree about the "best engineered" part, because I have worked on both Linux Network drivers and Windows "NDIS 6.0" drivers, and I can tell you that the "NDIS 6.0" network stack is poorly thought-out over-optimized bullshit. And that's how the entire OS feels to me. A bunch of "good Ideas" wrapped in years of structural incompetence, with nobody there to reject some hastily-written deadline-driven bullshit.

@onterof@sueden.social @stooovie@mas.to @ondra@social.unextro.net @chatcontrol@mastodon.social the problem is, the regulation not working will not lead them to rethink their approach, it will lead them to even more drastic regulation. We have seen it happen with copyright. Watch the 28c3 Cory Doctorow talk. I think we need to point out to politicians that any kind of "prevent computer from computing X" or "prevent transmission of X over network" will NEVER work, and trying to make it work will destroy a lot of things

@ati1@mastodon.social @xinayder@fosstodon.org @ondra@social.unextro.net @chatcontrol@mastodon.social the hard part is making that clear to laypersons, the general populace, and politicians. No-one should debate anyone on chat control without having thought about how to communicate this effectively. You cannot prove that a computer is NOT doing a specific thing (halting Problem) Trying to make a computer that can do everything _except_ illegal things is like trying to invent a wheel that can't be used in bank robbery get away - it doesn't work.

@ati1@mastodon.social @xinayder@fosstodon.org @ondra@social.unextro.net @chatcontrol@mastodon.social I am not projecting my worst Fears, I am just pointing out that ANY implementation of this bullshit will either

• be so ineffective that moderately smart criminals can subvert it relatively easily

OR

• be so disruptive that it will require the police randomly coming to your house to have a look at your computer, or general computing being taken away from users, etc., which would destroy large parts of the IT industry.

There is no way around this. Its math.

@stooovie@mas.to @ondra@social.unextro.net @chatcontrol@mastodon.social yeah, my point is not a "well, I will always have secure communication so I am disinterested in this discussion". My point is that this entire endeavor is foolish and should be mocked and exposed as stupid and ineffectual, if not plain evil.

@stooovie@mas.to @ondra@social.unextro.net @chatcontrol@mastodon.social granted, the EU can force companies operating within EU to comply. But that just means that specifically the "criminal communication" which CC were supposed to catch, would immediately move to the dozens of already existing open-source E2E messaging solutions. So CC would only work in the way that they specifically claim it wouldn't; to create a broad surveillance machine. For anything else, they would have to take away our general computation, which they can't.

@ati1@mastodon.social @ondra@social.unextro.net @chatcontrol@mastodon.social talk for reference: https://www.youtube.com/embed/HUEvRyemKSg?feature=oembed transcript: http://opentranscripts.org/transcript/coming-war-general-computation/

@ati1@mastodon.social @ondra@social.unextro.net @chatcontrol@mastodon.social they can't. They would have to basically outlaw non-approved apps to be installed or used on any computer in Europe. Cory Doctorow has talked about this multiple times; authoritarians and Capitalists would love to put the Turing machine back into the proverbial bottle … but it doesn't work like that. You cannot exclude a Turing machine from doing "a specific thing". You cannot subtract features from a Turing machine, because it has only one feature: turing-completedness