Once a contract is deployed on the blockchain, its source code is immutable. So before using a contract, check if it gives permission to its deployer (or any address) to change any state at will.
Note that some contracts act as proxy to other contract and can be made to point to another code through a state change, if this is the case then you need to trust whoever can change the state to point to another contract. Such contract sometime have a timelock so that if such a change occurs, there's a delay before it is actually activated, which gives time to users to withdraw their funds if they do not trust the update.
If you are talking about Oracle contracts, if it's an oracle involving offchain data, then there will always be some trust involved, which is usually managed by having the offchain actors share the responsibility and staking some money with the risk to get slashed if they turn into bad actors. But again, offchain data oracles will always require some level of trust that would have to deal with in non-blockchain apps too.
> Any small nation that is going to survive is going to look like Israel or Taiwan, militarized, armed to the teeth, with discipline, cohesion and state capacity.
> I can certainly understand the frustration at having to deal with a community that gets annoyed at anything that changes simply because they're already so used to the garbage pile they have that they now hold the delusion that it's actually not garbage.
It's not just the FOSS community, look at how non technical people react every time gmail, outlook or excel makes a tiny change to the UI (not to mention big ones). It really makes people angry when things don't work the same anymore, let alone when it doesn't even work anymore for their use case.
> In my admittedly somewhat distanced opinion, Wayland's biggest mistakes were not launching with a coherent strategy for replicating functionality like screen sharing, screenshots, and to a lesser extent remote desktop/applications. They just punted and said "that's a compositor problem!"
My guess is that it wasn't a deliberate strategy, it just that like anything related to the Linux desktop, the project was underfunded so they had to focus on certain issues. In this case it was focusing on improving from xorg and making sure it doesn't break anything on the main use cases of whoever was funding the project (mainly redhat). Apple and Microsoft can afford to pour billions in their display server/protocol/windowing system. Not so much for Linux.
Switzerland is one the most highly educated and richest country on earth. Do you think the results of direct democracy would be equally responsible in Egypt, Syria or Bolivia? (I'm half-Syrian).