I'm sorry but clearly the introduction of these apps with these requirements in the near past and near future represent regression over time rather than improvement.
I think it was last year that there was a good presentation from them about how they were going to use ZKP and it was indeed very trust inspiring. But do you think the latest digital wallet solution from eg Danish government uses ZKP? Of course not!
I have to say that the tune they play at FOSDEM and what we see put into production are just two different things.
> polls also consistently show that Greenlanders do not want independence if the price is the collapse of the Greenlandic welfare state.
Even replacing independence with becoming part of the US - any one time payment couldn't ensure the continuation of the welfare state. That is, free healthcare, free higher education, access to social support, etc.
No, people can't just kick out an authoritarian dictator. Such rulers don't need democratic support to stay in power. Strong men only leave their palaces due to two reasons - death from old age or an even stronger power forcing them.
>> He says he could begin to block ad blockers in Firefox and estimates that’d bring in another $150 million, but he doesn’t want to do that. It feels off-mission.
> I read this as “I don't want to but I'll kill AdBlockers in Firefox for buckerinos ”.
I completely disagree. First of all the original quote is paraphrasing, so we don't know in which tone it was delivered, but calling something "off-mission" doesn't at all sound like "we'd do it for money" to me.
I think it's a reference to certain optimizations possible due to aliasing rules in Rust that are not possible (or maybe only "not straight forward", I'm not sure) in C. So a transpiled program while keeping its semantics might not still compile to equally optimized assembly.
His own party has a history of totalitarian initiatives. This is the "surveillance is freedom" party. He was surely getting pressured, but from within.
If you're going to run code without inspecting it though, the methods are similar. One case has https, the other a signature (which you're trusting due to obtaining it over https). You can't inspect it reliably only after getting hypothetically compromised.
I don't think that's true, most projects using uv don't rely on those tools at all, and you don't need to understand them. You just `uv sync` and do your work.
I can no longer engage in (controversial) debates on other social medias, as responses often indicate a lack of understanding with the other person - they glance over the arguments, make a prejudice-based opinion, and then they respond to their straw man, often loaded with bad emotions. It's quite frustrating and as you say, sadly only solution is to disengage, but in so doing the polarisation only increases as dissenting opinions are removing themselves.
In at least the scientific python environment, there's "SPEC0" in which a lot of the de facto core libraries have basically agreed to support the last three versions of Python, no more.
For other libraries they can of course choose as they want, but generally I don't think it's so common for libraries to be as generous with the support length as cpython.
It's also simpler. It could even be a package level thing similar to typed.py marker. I don't want to pepper literally all my modules with loads of explicit lazy keywords.
> In theory, being ISO27001 means that you're environment follows best practices and has a somewhat sane security posture.
Nah, it just means you have defined, documented processes and document that you stick to them. They actual processes can be shit and maybe you also have something on the side the auditors don't get shown, but ultimately the certification is a total joke. Source: Worked at a place that got certified despite being a security joke.
Explicit errors are not correctness issues. Some numerical instability issues in certain algorithms in certain corner cases might be considered as such though.
Regardless, overall, these are grossly of another complexity and seriousness than the base sum function being just wrong, or cultural issues among developers with not verifying inputs "for performance", or things of that nature. The scientific Python community has, in my experience, a much higher adherence to good standards than that.
Tbf this is only the position of a few extreme governments. Other European countries have been perfectly happy to let the US use their bases for this.