*A wild Systemd spawns*

The fact that WASM is NOT a programmimg language, and that WASM is intrinsically sandboxed and has really granular permissions (through WASI).

Also, how do you expect that, for example, a videoconference site (let’s say, Jitsi Meet) will work if you don’t execute any client-side code? And I’m not saying that all client-side code is permisible, justified or good, but rather that not all the client-side code is unpermisible, unjustified or bad, as you seem to imply.

And if you do use FLOSS, that’s really paranoid, even if FLOSS isn’t perfect.

Wasm seems like a good step towards a better web, and still is something really niche AFAIK.

I hope that it becomes standard, because is way more secure, and of course more performant than JS.

I do even think that the HTML+CSS+JS triad (and its single components, too) are a historical bad design decision, a HUGE one, and should’ve superseded.

Do you exist?

I get your point, yeah. I actually do think that scripts should’ve hugely modularized, compartmentalized, and browsers should’ve using OCaps instead of ACLs, or at least make more granular ACLs so you can finetune what can or what cannot do a given site and/or a given script.

It was not that one, but yeah, it’s basically the same.

I just remembered the one(s) I used a while ago, tho, they were aur-guard, and aur-scanner, I used these two (the second one just because its aur-scan codes [OPTIONS] and aur-scan explain <CODE> commands.

That doesn’t makes false that TikTok is shit and is ruining everyone’s attention and retention span.

You can omit the paywall using a web archive like Archive.is or Wayback Machine. Or using uBlock Origin. Or using Unpaywall.

Yeah. There’s also some others behaviours to look at.

Like, does the PKGBUILD install the package on some non-standard location? That’s a suspicious behaviour, although it’s not an automatic red flag by itself.

Does it execute arbitrary code or any external script (worse if it’s Python, Lua or JS)? That’s a HUGE red flag in most of cases.

Does it (ab)uses of AWK, sed and the like? That’s also suspicious in a variety of cases.

I once found a Rust program that streamlined the PKGBUILD reviewing process a lot by, first of all, giving you a really neat list of patterns and behaviours that would make a PKGBUILD suspicios or even plain dangerous, then having a scriptable rule-based engine that would either abort that operation, or show warns and workarounds to you.

I forgot its name, unfortunately, and I installed it on my previous installation (Garuda, now I’m on CachyOS).

Very dumb of my part not to try to write that down before the OS change lol.

Meanwhile myself using Arch btw

I’m just doing this by going to ARRR my music and install Smolsonic.

Yes, I totally understand the logic. It’s just a transitivity problem, and can be modeled using a cost-benefit analysis:

1. A hidden camera is more dangerous for the victim because it is less risky for the creep/abuser.
2. You will not reasonably believe that a doctor will have a hidden camera inside his office.
3. A camera exposed to the naked eye is less dangerous for the victim because it is more risky for the creep/abuser.
   • The abuser is unlikely to take that risk because he could lose too much, much more than he would gain.
4. So it is reasonable not to believe that your doctor will record or photograph you with a camera exposed to the naked eye since it is inherently riskier for the creep, and it is not reasonable to believe otherwise.

Although, the problem here then shifts to the hardware itself. Like, since these lenses were probably closed source and proprietary hardware, and their software as well, then you don’t have a way to prove that if you turn off the camera on said lens (either via the software kill-switch or via the hardware kill-switch) it is actually turning off, or just appears to turn off when it is actually still on but disguised as being turned off. And taking into account that there are precedents of devices doing this (a particularly famous case was that of a smart TV that even when you turned it off, it was not really off, but in a false shutdown, a very low power state where the screen was off, but the core and some telemetry processes, and the microphone, were still running and, thus, recording and sending everything that was recorded to their servers). So the only rational position, at least from a Game Theory point of view, is to assume that every device that is both closed source and closed hardware, that is not Free, Libre and Open Source Software, and Libre and Open Source and Schematics Hardware (yeah, even releasing their schematics), does the same thing.

And even worse when you are poor or simply cannot pay.

We really need to find the square of the circle on this, where we can have total freedom, low cost, high modularity and grassroots origin.

I think that an progressivist approach would be the correct (basically, not static prices, but dynamical prices: you’re rich? Then you pay more; you’re poor? Then you pay less or don’t pay at all. The ones in the top do subsidize the ones on the bottom). But of course, that’s hard asf to do.

Oh, I’m so sorry, I just reread it and realized I misunderstood what you said.

I noticed that I isolated the first part of your comment and overlooked the subordinating conditional clause below it, which led me to commit a straw man fallacy driven by a selection bias.

That said, I have to point out that your initial statement still relied on a composition and a generalization fallacy —even though you didn’t explicitly claim that all pedophiles are offenders— by stating in a blanket way that all pedophiles should kill themselves due to the actions of a minority of them.

I think this mutual oversight was the root of the misunderstanding, and again, I apologize for my part in it.

I hope this helps both of us have better interactions in the future.

Also, he should be orange, not red lmao

No, I shouldn’t. Now that I’m proving my point you don’t want to read? Fucking coward.

Yeah, just as these mononeuronal dumbasses that replied me with their bullshit

Yeah, and I’m not saying or implying that he’s not in his right to think or say that, I’m just exercising my fucking right to respond to him and criticize his position with fundamentals. After all, by saying that something is intrinsically bad, you are at the same time making a normative statement about what you think it should be; and that normative statement something I disagree with because, if it is done and / or made law, it contravenes freedom of expression; and I can name examples of real life, such as my own country (Venezuela), or others like Argentina (both before Milei and with Milei), Russia, Ukraine, the United States, Canada, Australia, China, Spain, NorKorea, etc., where that, for having been included in the law, has caused very serious human rights problems. And I know it may seem like I’m doing a slippery slope fallacy, but no, because the problem is, who decides the cutting point? Who decides where the limits of what can and cannot be said? Any limit is arbitrary and as such any attempt to regulate it is also arbitrary and highly prone to totalitarianism, populism and chauvinism, just as in these countries (which, curiously, have also started with seemingly innocent things like this); think, it is the same as with the EU’s anti-privacy movements; the declared objective is, in principle, commendable, but once they already have the legal infrastructure, they just have to change the objective to something absolutely unacceptable (like quiet dissidents) and we can do nothing. Like this or more fucking clear?