Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)AR
Posts
0
Comments
97
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • That's literally the defining feature of asymmetric cryptography. There are many explanations of how it works which you can easily find. One example is the Wikipedia article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography

    If you educate yourself and are still confused, you should probably just accept the fact that even though you can't understand the specifics, information encoded with the public key cannot be decoded with the same public key.

  • In my opinion the most relevant commonality is the hypocrisy of all the involved parties. Hillary had sent out a notice to the entire State Department saying to only use official communication platforms, and then did the opposite as if she thinks she's above the rules.

    Then these Republicans who condemned the actions also used a non-official platform.

  • I helped do the easy scenario at large scale in a fortune 50 several years ago after the vendor thought they could get greedy on the support contract renewal. Only required small changes to a few files and packages.

  • Copyright does not give the holder control over every "use", especially something as vague as "using it to undermine their skillset".

    Copyright gives the rights holder a limited monopoly on three activities: to make and sell copies of their works, to create derivative works, and to perform or display their works publicly.

    Not all uses involve making a copy, derivative, or performance.

  • It's poor for the second, since the result is a gas (hard to store long term). We would want it as a solid or liquid product, which this doesn't do.

    Why wouldn't the device include or feed a compressor to liquidize the CO2? It takes just a little over 5 atm of pressure which is trivial.

  • Agreed (mostly).

    Just because something isn't illegal, that doesn't make it morally right. The inverse also applies.

    Even though the First Amendment prohibits government suppression of speech, it doesn't mean that the expression is immune to consequences from society including non-governmental suppression.

    I think the "no arrests were made" observation was meant in relation to your last point, not the first at all.

  • Right? So much of this seems like people not able to tell if actions are good or bad independent of who takes the action. There's no way their team could ever do anything bad, and anything done by the other team is automatically bad.

    God forbid you try to reinforce a rare good behavior from someone who's also done a lot of horrendous things.

  • Wrong. These people can't handwave away their portion of responsibility for the current situation. They chose to lend their skills to a company with a long, well-documented track record of actions harmful to society. If you can get hired by one of the FAANG companies you could also get hired by nearly any company.

  • Someone stealing any physical property is likely bad for one or more reasons.

    Also, you can't steal an idea or a concept. Copying digital information doesn't deprive the creator of the original. Copying isn't theft.