Why not implement unix sockets too, since we want to avoid the ip/tcp stack? Now you have two platforms to support for no real gain. Also, LSP applications are shared between projects/users, how you centralize that if each system needs its own installed program and dependencies? Using networking is the path of least resistance and it's drawbacks are well understood between the ones that need to communicate, there's no point to implement IPC based communication.

People still can install/run whatever they like on their PCs, so why further restrictions needed or am I missing something? Also, further restrictions doesn't seem to work on the mobile/TV market where actual malware still infects iOS/Android/TV devices despite all the "hops" that it has too go through.

Code signing with warnings about non-signed apps is enough

Hmm? Malware on iOS is extremely rare.

I remember in Bitcoin community ~10 years ago, standard recommendation was than an iOS wallet was secure enough (I don't recall even a single case where wallet was stolen via malware), but any private keys on Windows were strongly discouraged, as most cases of stolen wallets were on Windows.

I'd say popularity of iPhone shows which way people prefer, but you do you - what prevents you from voting with your wallet and buying a Linux phone?..

I read several years back that most of the time when an accident happens the copilot knew something wrong was happening but wasn't willing to override the cap. This is a cultural change rather than procedure.

There have been big changes over the decades on that but the counterfactual is also that you could imagine lots of crashes from confusion in the cockpit during critical times if two pilots are working towards cross-objectives or are more occupied communicating to eachother than just doing what one person said needs to happen.

Binding arbitration shouldn't be a thing. If we want to go to arbitration is because we are in the same level of negotiation. One side imposing arbitration or any other kind of restriction on the mechanism that the individual or organization has to redress issues shouldn't be a thing

The counterargument is that if you don't have binding arbitration, you can be constantly worried that the other party will drive you bankrupt with frivolous legal proceedings, and that fear discourages collaboration. A binding arbitration puts that fear at ease.

To me that is a flaw in the justice system that needs to be resolved by legislation and within the justice system, not something that should have some bs extralegal work around.

Ah, yes, "fixing" the broken American rule for attorneys' fees by corrupting the justice system even further.

Banning binding arbitration means that class actions can happen.

That's irrelevant to the point I'm making. Class action is, almost by definition, a case where there is unequal power.

That's what systems like Pix fixes. It's managed by the state, it's low cost and it's universal... which is why the US is against it so hard.

> Most of their docs hosting is static/easily CDN cached

The article says

> and it purposefully attacked areas that bypassed caching

So that doesn't work. Also, it seems that they were trying to cause financial harm, not to take down the infrastructure but to make it costly for the org itself. That's smart.

What if you keep the protections that actually benefit you, but doesn't restrict your clients? ie. if you keep the exclusive combined right to distribute reproduced works, but not to distribute (you already sold a copy) or reproduce (after you sold a copy it doesn't matter what happens with that copy).

You don't need to abolish copyright, you just have to limit the scope to the economic mechanism that actually matter for authors: reproduction and distribution of the reproduced works. Removing all of copyright except that combined right will still give authors the ability to license under the terms they find reasonable and viable, without harming any of the consumer abilities that we've come to expect.

It wouldn't have mattered how long copyright is if it wasn't expanded beyond the immediate economic desincentives that it is supposed to address for the most insidious problems it causes. It should be been limited exclusively to the combined right to reproduction and distribution. Yes, that means that I could reproduce the protected work without limit, so long as don't distribute it. Also means that I could distribute the protected work so long as I do only the copies I acquired.

I, like you, through for a while that length was the problem, now I've poked around enough and known about enough actual examples where shorter length wouldn't have prevented the problems that happens with copyright. The content Sony had repeatedly removed from people's libraries was well within copyright term, shorter copyright wouldn't have saved it. What would have saved it is copyright scope that never extended to controlling access to copies already sold

I wanted something like this for a org, but I wanted it to be integrated with the OS/file browser. Windows 7 had some tagging, which is the flat structure you need for that, but never got the buy in from management to use it (they preferred a strict tree folder structure), so this seems cool but I want to see it integrated into something else, maybe a library?