CuriousCosmic

tahun laludiscuss

The point of Chesterton's fence is that the fence was created for a specific reason and then was removed without addressing that. Replacing that fence with something built for an entirely unrelated purpose isn't replacing that fence. The closest equivalent would be replacing an electric fence with a small stone retaining wall.

They do different things. The electric fence is for keeping animals in/out and the retaining wall is for keeping soil from moving. Sure you may add the retaining wall but you've still removed the electric fence so the foxes can now get into your chicken coops or your cows are running free. That's chesterton's fence. Even if well meaning, making a change that fails to replicate/fulfil the original purpose of the original fence causes the issues to return.

CuriousCosmic

tahun laludiscuss

> We have data of incidents

Those are recreational boating accidents. They are completely unrelated to the discussion at hand (which is commercial fishing accidents).

> Now do before 2018 when the NCFSAC didn't exist...

> It's simply returning to the status quo of 6 years ago.

It's not though. Before it was called the NCFSAC, it was the Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety Advisory Committee (CFIVSAC). That committee existed back to 2010 at least.

If you are interested in what they actually do, you probably want to go here: https://www.dco.uscg.mil/NCFSAC/

---

And I'm not sure exactly what argument you are trying to make. It's not Chesterton's fence to do something new. It is Chesterton's fence to get rid of something without planning for something to replace it's role. It's not a complicated concept. Chesterton's fence is about removing something without understanding why it was there and planning properly for after it's gone.

CuriousCosmic

tahun laludiscuss

The issue is that fence 2 doesn't serve the same purpose as fence 1.

Fence 1 is that we have the NCFSAC that serves to ensure the safety of commercial fishing.

Fence 2 is no fence because we don't want to limit economic activity.

That's by definition removing the fence, not moving it.

Safety policy is written in blood. By getting rid of the committee that writes that policy you aren't moving the fence, you are just getting rid of it and letting the blood that chesterton's fence once stopped to flow again.

CuriousCosmic

tahun laludiscuss

The fence is a restriction. i.e. a regulation or series of rules. These committees make those rules. It's not just a state of being.

Getting rid of a fence doesn't mean there's magically an older fence you've moved to. It's only when you replace a set of rules with a different set of rules to serve the same purpose that you've moved the fence.

Removing the fence is exactly that, getting rid of the fence. There is no before fence. You've just removed the fence.

CuriousCosmic

tahun laludiscuss

That's not how Chesterton's Fence works? The point isn't that the fence was always there. It's that people who try to dismantle the fence never bothered to learn why the fence was put up in the first place.

The fence could have been put up yesterday but if you never even bother to learn why the fence was put up before trying to remove it, that's still Chesterton's Fence.

CuriousCosmic

2 tahun yang laludiscuss

No. iOS builds don't support it.

CuriousCosmic

2 tahun yang laludiscuss

> It may decrease privacy philosophically, but it isn't nefarious.

It doesn't decrease privacy. It decreases anonymity which is distinctly different.

> If you want a private messaging platform with zero prerequisite identity, use Briar.

Or Session which is a fork of Signal that runs it's own network using standard PKI instead of a phone number for identities and a decentralised message delivery/onion routing system.

CuriousCosmic

3 tahun yang laludiscuss

Software attestation of hardware is just pointless anti-competitive behavior.

Hardware Attestation however can have an actual security benefit.

If beeper was able to attest without hardware, Apple isn't doing hardware attestation and it's therefore just anti-competitive.

CuriousCosmic

3 tahun yang laludiscuss

If you read the FAQ they have regarding the citation notice for GNU Parallel, it's made clear that it is not part of the license in any way and only applies to projects that are part of/the basis for academic papers. If it does apply to your project and you don't cite, at absolute worst you could get in trouble with your university or the academic community but even then it's almost certainly going to be mild at worst.

But importantly you can use the software however you want that is compatible with GPLv3. That includes ignoring or removing the citation notice without paying a cent. However just because it's legal doesn't mean it won't come with the potential for social consequences.

    == Is the citation notice compatible with GPLv3? ==
    
    Yes. The wording has been cleared by Richard M. Stallman to be compatible with GPLv3. This is because the citation notice is not part of the license, but part of academic tradition.

    Therefore the notice is not adding a term that would require citation as mentioned on:
    https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#RequireCitation

    The link only addresses the license and copyright law. It does not address academic tradition, and the citation notice only refers to academic tradition.

    [...]

https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/cita...

and from the GPL faq itself (which said citation FAQ references):

    Does the GPL allow me to add terms that would require citation or acknowledgment in research papers which use the GPL-covered software or its output? (#RequireCitation)
    
    No, this is not permitted under the terms of the GPL. While we recognize that proper citation is an important part of academic publications, citation cannot be added as an additional requirement to the GPL. Requiring citation in research papers which made use of GPLed software goes beyond what would be an acceptable additional requirement under section 7(b) of GPLv3, and therefore would be considered an additional restriction under Section 7 of the GPL. And copyright law does not allow you to place such a requirement on the output of software, regardless of whether it is licensed under the terms of the GPL or some other license.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#RequireCitation

---

TLDR: The citation notice is a "cite it in academic works or pay me" agreement that is as legally binding as a pinky promise. You can break it without concern but some people may look negatively on that and it may come with social consequences.

CuriousCosmic

3 tahun yang laludiscuss

Honestly in many cases you can have your cake and eat it too if you just write in a functional or data-flow style rather than a rigorous OO style. Since this is C++, using std::algorithm or another algorithms library would let you abstract your implementation details while relying on the compiler's ability to optimise/vectorise/inline code as needed.

This applies doubly so if you can rely on templates & structural typing to push your polymorphism to compile time. clang & gcc are surprisingly good at optimisation as long when you don't have to bounce off a vtable and code is clean / avoids "manual optimisation".

Also while I'm not saying I don't believe the author here, I wish they would have used https://quick-bench.com/ or https://godbolt.org/ so that readers could trivially verify the results & methodology.

comments