One of the problems I face when somebody comes along and tells me that they're now on Telegram, Cryptocat, Wire, or whathaveyou is that I might recall an issue but there doesn't seem to be a good up-to-date overview that answers the questions (1) should I trust these people (how bad was it; was it in their code or a dependency?) and (2) is it known to be far less secure than it advertises? (still?)
I recall e.g. that Moxie reviewed Telegram's security, found that none of it made any sense and that its authors didn't know what they were doing. https://tobtu.com/decryptocat.php looks like the cryptocat analogue of that. Have the two projects improved somehow? Have some people joined or others left?
Could you please also provide links for the claim that CryptoCat and Telegram are being used by governments to hunt down activists?
PJB has become a bit (too little for my taste) of a persona non grata in the common lisp world (which has a large overlap with the emacs world) ever since it was suggested and so far not disproved (names match, nicknames match) that he's the person behind https://twitter.com/ogamita
I dislike holocaust-deniers as much as the next guy, but I find it troubling that one's political opinions should prevent us from considering a person's work in a distinct domain. This is especially true in the present case: I see no evidence that PJB has crossed the Hitler stream with the common lisp stream.
People can be smart and respectable in one domain and stupid in another.
A person can be smart in one domain and stupid in another, so much is clear (think Grothendieck in maths and politics)
But a person cannot be both respectable and disrespectable at the same time, I find, although I'm afraid now we might be disagreeing rather about words than ideas. Respectability, to me, is a compliment to somebody's set of values.
I agree, but the point was rather about censorship.
I find it troubling that we should censor (explicitly or otherwise) someone on accounts of his respectability. I find this especially true when the source of disrespectability stems from an unrelated topic.
On the other hand, the influence that people have tends to be blind to how they previously acquired that influence. It's a very common problem in politics: you put power on someone due to their credentials in one area, and they suddenly have power they don't deserve in a completely different domain.
We can both condemn the stupid/wrong behavior and celebrate the intellectual achievements. The point is that we shouldn't hold back our praise of the latter on account of the former.
This is a typical false-dichotomy that plagues contemporary discourse around social justice and various *isms.
This is especially important to keep in mind because there is no way to shun a person and change their mind on the opinion that led to their shunning. Only engagement does that.
There are two sides to this and I think they're important to distinguish: If the person in question was wrongfully accused, this could do undeserved damage to him. This would be a misfortune (albeit not a great one given how little activity my comment generated) but I'm currently sufficiently convinced this won't happen that I went ahead and posted the comment.
The other matter is rehabilitation. Whether he should be allowed to apologise at some point, say that he made a mistake, and be welcomed back, is something that you cannot decide for everyone. It's up to your personal beliefs, in particular your religion. Everybody needs to determine that for him- or herself, in my opinion.
Thank you for this post. I had technical interaction with him in the past, and read many of his technical posts. But I did not know this. I will no longer interact with him.
Hm, I wonder if there's something similar to what's happened with Terry A. Davis, author of what's been renamed to TempleOS [1]. He became schizophrenic, and has become less and less coherent over time. He used to have an account here, but either I can't remember it or it's been deleted: most of his posts were of the vile variety.
There was an extensive profile of him on Motherboard [2]
Please scroll further. I understand that some of it is French but you should notice rather quickly nonetheless that this did not just happen on a single occasion. Essentially everything he writes fits into the narrative of #whitegenocide
I did dig in his tweets quite a lot, found many retweets of this pro-hitler account, also French extreme right parties, among normal right wing tweets. But all are retweets, no written ones, no debate, no long trolling. I also searched on google for mention of his nicks with hitler | holocaust | denier | ... and found nothing. If he did express disturbing views he did this on non indexed platforms.
I am surprised because I spent a lot of times on irc near lisp related (scheme, guile, emacs, so strictly speaking no CL, CLOS, lisp) channels and never heard bad mentions about him. Now I agree that this twitter account seems quite linked and probably pjb, but I can't decide anything based on just that.
> 2016-09-29T23:57:32Z Xach: I dropped com.informatimago because I do not want to have to discuss anything with pjb again. I have never enjoyed discussing anything previously, but his vile twitter feed drove me over the edge, and his project no longer builds, so I don't want to report problems or discuss solutions.
on comp.lang.lisp he called the concentration camps 'a details in the history of WWII' and 'Then they killed in these camps less people than for example the International Socialists of the URSS and China, by two order of magnitudes!'
Comparing this with surgery is not fair, I think. Here (with a food like soylent) the gains are low and the risks are high. With surgery, the risks are high but so are the gains. Before you go into surgery you're given a list of 10 ways you might die if something goes wrong. Oftentimes, though, the alternative is certain death (in the very near future).
Edit: I was replying to "But we have made surgery mistakes along the way". On a second reading, I notice that you did not actually mean to imply "it was necessary there so it's necessary here".
The use-case? Well, you have a process that will run for a long time. You don't want to keep a terminal open. You /could/ just detach it. Now what if you want to kill it? Open another terminal, kill it by PID or through pkill. Clicking a button might be more convenient.
>Marathono is a small GUI tool that helps you manage long-running processes in macOS, so you don't have to maintain multiple windows/tabs/tmux sessions in your Terminal.
How about one tmux session and a couple of windows? You could name the windows perhaps. I could see how this might not scale, but I bet my socks someone else has found a way to script this and make it easy.
I know we don't want to be overly negative on HN, but this doesn't sound like a problem that needed a completely newly rolled solution.
So you have GUI output. What if I want to grep or save it to a file? I can see how this will be usable for people who aren't comfortable with a terminal--as a someone who transplated linux-to-mac, I know how terrible the terminal experience is on mac.
EDIT: below I was corrected that Marathono does all manipulating text output, +1.
The main benefit for me is it saves all the commands you want to commonly run. So for things like an SSH tunnel, rather than having to keep some snippet around to copy/paste into that new tmux window (yes, I use tmux extensively), I can just put all the random SSH tunnel strings I need into one list, and turn them on/off as needed.
Also, I have to disagree with the terminal experience on the mac being terrible. Between iTerm and brew, I've never come across anything I couldn't do, but that could be done on linux.
I find that Windows developers seem more comfortable with GUI-heaviness in their dev environment, Linux developers seem less comfortable with it, and Mac is in kind of an odd gray zone in between. This seems fitting for the general style of the OS - sometimes sacrificing power to make things "just work" in a minimal UI.
There might be cases where I would find it useful but overall its usefulness is subjective and dependent on what you're looking for in your workflow/workspace.
Which seems like it would be a Big Deal, for a Mac user. The entire appeal of the Mac (for a developer) is that it layers a friendly GUI over a Unix-ey foundation. Presumably a user who values that GUI would also value GUI-oriented ways to do things that were previously terminal-only.
If "just use screen" was an answer that would make that user happy, they wouldn't have spent the extra money to buy a Mac in the first place.
The "Show Output" menu of Marathono opens a Terminal/iTerm tab to tail the output. Currently Marathono is designed for start-and-forget kind of processes - outputs are for occasional debugging purpose only.
Does this have to be the case? I have a couple of long running processes that I would really like to check the output of from time to time. Couldn't you have an option to just show the last line for example? Was super excited to see this as I've been bugged by exactly this but if I can't see the output it's a dealbreaker for me unfortunately
This feels like a caricature of Mac users. I mean, I like solid GUIs for graphical-friendly tasks. But launchd already exists and this doesn't even use that.
Launchd is a pain in the ass. And a poorly documented one at that. When they changed how it worked in a fundamental way somewhat recently (Yosemite I think) they couldn't even be assed to update their online documentation.
I wouldn't mind if this used launchd under the hood though.
This is already addressed in the article, e.g. here:
There might, however, be a dark side to the story. There is
a good reason we were designed to have finite sensitive
periods. Takao Hensch, a Harvard neuroscientist, has
written that plasticity takes a lot of energy: It’s
exhausting to keep all your neural circuits in a dynamic
state. Restricting it may protect the brain.
and in the paragraphs thereafter (I don't want to quote them here in full).
I take the attribution in the first link (references to "Führerbunker" and "Führer") to mean that the author is comparing Lennart Poettering to Hitler. That's not funny, it's just very, very inappropriate.
