shp0ngle

If you had actually read the thread you'd know that it's Wikipedia policy not to include links to sites containg content illegal in the US because that can actually get visitors in trouble.

Not really though.

They have WP:ELNO which includes this, but that excludes WP:ELOFFICIAL. Official links are exception to that list.

"These links are normally exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking"

The only things that are restricted for official pages is what is in WP:ELNEVER

1. Policy: material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked, whether in an external-links section or in a citation.[a] External links to websites that display copyrighted works are acceptable as long as the website is manifestly run, maintained or owned by the copyright owner; the owner has licensed the content in a way that allows the website to use it; or the website uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright might be considered contributory copyright infringement.[c] If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd, WikiLeaks, or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright. 2. Technical: sites that match the Wikipedia-specific or multi-site blacklist without being whitelisted. Edits containing such links are automatically blocked from being saved.

According to wikipedia's own official policies, links to 8chan and kiwifarms should be allowed as official links, as Stormfront and The Daily Stormer is, as they don't break copyright and are not on spam blacklists.

---

again my problem is not censorship (I am for that), it's just that wikipedia acts like it isn't happening and cannot make an official ruleset that they follow.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_...

https://foundation.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Controver...

If there is some official policy which links are allowed and which are not, I'll shut up.

Why are some links allowed and some not, what is the policy, if there is some.

I see

Wikimedia projects are not censored. Some kinds of content, particularly that of a sexual, violent or religious nature, may be offensive to some viewers; and some viewers may feel such content is disrespectful or inappropriate for themselves, their families or their students, while others may find it acceptable.

which seems to me against link censorship.

your friend should stop seeing "girlfriends".

Yeah for example 8chan and kiwifarms are usually censored. I'm not that mad about it, some censorship is always necessary (you don't want links to child porn), but it's weird that Wikipedia pretends there is no censorship. And it's kind of arbitrary.

Why is stormfront - an openly nazi forum (a really old one at that) - allowed, but kiwifarms - an anti-trans doxxing forum - isn't? It's both bad

Everyone steals in Vietnam.

Every time the communists change positions in the politburo, the new communist in charge arrests the previous one for corruption. And so it goes.

(Nguyen Xuan Phuc, the one who was hailed for zero covid previously, was later arrested for... stealing covid funds. Oh wow, who knew)

There is 0 trust between actual people for the party. People just shut up because the economy is doing fine and people have jobs.

On one hand it's Vietnam where everyone bribes everyone. (Literally. Stealing country funds is a fact of life.)

On the other hand it's 21 billion.

Still rough.

Note that she got a death sentence for fraud. It's... rough. (In my opinion.)

The actual maintainers of the repo seem to take the position that all "Jia Tan" commits are backdoor-free unless proven otherwise, so most of his commits still stay (as they* did a LOT of actual, real work on the repo).

I am curious what people think about that. It's still around 30k lines of code made by a known malicious entity, looking at git blame. However it seems mostly fine?

* plural "they" ;)

I'll ping Jigar

Well they do solve problem for me - I want a small phone, flip is.

I like my iPhone Mini but apparently most people didn't.

AirTags/Find My is THE reason why me and my whole family is on iOS.

This is great. I wanted my next phone to be Z Flip since Apple stopped making small iPhones (and no foldables in sight), but reliance on Find My stopped me.

This is great

Every time someone explains to me autotools, the individual pieces sort of make sense, yet the result is always this inscrutable unreadable mess.

I don't know why.

Did the Jia Tan character actually committed something of value? Looking at the history, he had (there was some stuff with multithreaded compression/decompression); as he kept it in the original license, could it be used going forward?

as I wrote in a different thread, some projects don't have any source control.

From the big ones - 7z, ncurses are both tarballs only.

yes there is, it's called git clone.

:)

Interesting.

Well, xpdf I knew :) but yeah xpdf can be nuked, ncurses cannot.

There are still nowadays projects without a proper source control.

For example, xpdfreader, source of xpdf, is distributed just as source tarballs. The maintainer just publishes them every time there is a new version.

https://www.xpdfreader.com/download.html

https://www.xpdfreader.com/old-versions.html

https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=xpdf

There is nothing in Debian or FOSS in general that mandates having source control.

(I remember that was a point of contention with WebKit/KHTML... in the olden days of 2000-something, Apple forked KHTML to make WebKit, and in order to comply with GPL, they just published source tarballs, which were basically impossible to merge back into KHTML.)

edit:

ahh I see that the xpdf that is in debian is actually different than this one; someone forked it some time ago and it is in in git here (but no github/other forge, just .git)

https://offog.org/git/xpopple.git/

well ok, maybe I was wrong. but still, a .git folder on someone webpage is not that much more reliable than a tarball on someone's webpage

Does Nix/Guix solve this?

I have been skeptical of "rewrite everything into rust", but... maybe we should at least rewrite everything into Nix?

As other poster said, Chinese has diacritics that got usually removed when put into English websites

There are many real Jia Tans on LinkedIn

CIA didn't put anyone new into gitmo for years.

The 30 remaining gitmo prisoners are all W Bush holdovers that all subsequent administrations forgot.

I didn't realize it was a Microsoft engineer that works on Azure Postgres that found the issue.

Thanks, Microsoft, I like Azure now.

let's add passport (and visa) checks to github

There are not that many suspicious acts tbh. Randos complaining about unmaintained repos and unclosed issues is a constant in FOSS world.

Sometimes it's even true, some projects really die and stop actually addressing real issues.

But that's just inherent downside of the "bazaar" model. I don't think how we can "treat maintainers better" without going full corporate/without going full "cathedral".

Stop making software open source, start making it closed source and charge for licenses.

That works! Unfortunately it's bad for open source.

xz has its own git mirror where you can see all the commits

this hits one important point- git is very bad with large files, and all the "solutions", like git-lfs, are weird cludges

we should take this diagram and change "random person in nebraska" to "possibly a state-level attacker"

https://xkcd.com/2347/

nice

It was the same in here. I needed to accept a job with over 1 hour commute; but hey it's a job.

It's even forbidden by HN rules... somewhere.