I love the idea of built-in offline Wikipedia, huge plus.
Coming back to your first point... how often would you maintain a fork of your own encyclopedia? Even with Git, you would fork mostly in order to submit a PR to the original repo. I'm just trying to understand the use-case here since I cannot imagine a situation where I would fork Wikipedia and make my edits to be shared with my friends only and my friends would do the same.
Did you mean something like fandom.com where communities (not individuals) can start their own wikis? I'd also love that.
That would have been a good space for experimentation if the Wikipedia monoculture hadn't stopped it from happening. One idea is you could mark specific articles or categories as forked, so that your changes in those wouldn't get pushed upstream. Overall it might be something like the Linux kernel, where there are tons of forks out there for particular device families or whatever.
As a Wikipedia example, look up Joy Milne (the lady who can smell Parkinson's disease) with a web search, then look her up on Wikipedia. Wikipedia says nothing or almost nothing. That's not an oversight, that's Wikipedia bureaucracy in action. You might be able to get an edit through by battling the bureaucracy for long enough, but if you have an interest in this illness and wanted to gather and share info about it, it would be simpler to just fork the Parkinson's article. Et cetera.
Yeah, maybe not the best idea. And pointless, because we intend to release all torrents soon anyway (most are still processing)! Removed this part, thanks for the feedback.
So glad to see you here and thanks so much for anna’s archive, it has been super helpful to me personally for access to so many books mostly inaccessible to normal people in my country due to exhorbitant pricing structures.
> LTEENB allows to build a real 4G LTE/5G NR base station (called an eNodeB (4G) or gNodeB (5G)) using a standard PC and a low cost software radio frontend. All the physical layer and protocol layer processing is done in real time inside the PC, so no dedicated hardware is necessary. NB-IoT and Cat-M1 devices are also supported. The software is now developped and distributed by Amarisoft.
> The Austrian writer Stefan Zweig described the Viennese Coffee House as an institution of a special kind, "actually a sort of democratic club, open to everyone for the price of a cheap cup of coffee, where every guest can sit for hours with this little offering, to talk, write, play cards, receive post, and above all consume an unlimited number of newspapers and journals." Zweig in fact attributed a good measure of Vienna's cosmopolitan air to the rich daily diet of current and international information offered in the coffee houses.
> [...]
> Unlike some other café traditions around the world, it is completely normal for a customer to linger alone for hours and study the omnipresent newspaper. Along with coffee, the waiter will serve an obligatory glass of cold tap water and during a long stay will often bring additional water unrequested, with the idea to serve the guest with an exemplary sense of attention.
> Members include Intel, AMD, IBM, Microsoft, and Cisco.
> The core idea of trusted computing is to give hardware manufacturers control over what software does and does not run on a system by refusing to run unsigned software
I see that you are quoting Wikipedia, which claims to be quoting Trusted Platform Module FAQ from 2006[0]. However, if you actually read the FAQ, the authors explicitly reject that:
> Can the Trusted Platform Module control what software runs?
> No. There is no ability to do this. The subsystem can only act as a 'slave' to higher level services and applications by storing and reporting pre-runtime configuration information. Other applications determine what is done with this information. At no time can the TCG building blocks 'control' the system or report the status of applications that are running.
I'm not saying TPMs cannot be (or are not, today) used to give non-users control over what users can do with software running on their machine, however in the absence of evidence, I'm not inclined to believe that trusted computing efforts started with such "evil" intentions in the first place.
Albeit heavily abused, TPMs are still a great idea IMO.
Good catch, thank you for the correction. I should have dug deeper, at least to skim through the source material, instead of trusting a Wikipedia article to confirm my bias.
> this is in no way an endorsement of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
I sincerely hope that no one in their sane mind (at least on HN) would consider sharing a link to the academic work of Russian-speaking individuals as an endorsement of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Fascism isn't about prohibiting speech but forcing people to speak.[0]
[0] Roland Barthes said that: "Le fascisme ce n'est pas d'empêcher de dire c'est d'obliger à dire."
Eh, while the notice might not have been completely necessary, I do understand the awkwardness of linking to and recommending Russian state backed resources these days. It's the academic work of Russian-speaking individuals who are funded by the Russian state and whose work is published by an institution funded by the Russian state.
This is in no way meant to be taken as an attack on the individuals or the research, I'm just pointing out that you left out some quite important elements.
1. I don't think the notice is necessary. I said as much in my comment. I understand why the person decided to include it. Understanding why someone did a thing is not the same as saying everyone should do the thing.
2. Endorsing something that's backed by the Russian state is different from endorsing something done by some random Russian individual. This was the main point of my comment, but I must have communicated it poorly.
I guess the issue is that this has never really been how internet discourse happened. I've never seen anyone apologize for linking a Yale/Harvard/CSU study during the iraq war (and rightfully so), so it just kind of seems... weird.
For what it's worth, the sanctions frameworks against Russia are minefields on their own - and for a good reason, given the lengths Russia is willing to go to work around these instead of withdrawing their murderous goons from Ukrainian soil.
I would rather not err on the wrong side of a sanctions violations charge for supporting a Russian government institution, and e.g. in Germany, even linking to something illegal can land you a "supporting that content" charge - even liking porn on Twitter and no I'm not joking here, that's a currently ongoing issue.
Sharing porn openly has always been illegal in germany. Liking a post is an endorsement (of a criminal act) or further spreading (which is illegal unto itself), depending on the platform. Same thing for hate speech. When the law says you can't say a thing, it's unclear how one would conclude publicly liking a post you can't legally make isn't criminal.
Obviously we have a different idea where freedom of speech ends.
PS. With this upcoming UN treaty on cybercrime citizen of one country not breaking their own law might still become a criminal because they had broken for example that German law. What a fucking mess we are getting into.
I'm supportive of limiting freedom of speech where said speech actually can cause real harm. Like, the same kind of speech that the OG Nazi regime used to justify sending six million Jews and many other people (e.g. the disabled, travellers, LGBT) to the gas chambers. Five minutes of a visit to Auschwitz, Dachau, Bergen-Belsen or other historical sites should be enough reason for that - maybe there are so many supporters of completely unrestrained freedom of speech in the US because y'all never had the chance to see the evidence in person.
I, however, object to prosecute people for simply expressing sexuality. Germany is the only country I'm aware of other than Islamist theocracies that goes after people posting lewds with such an insane ferocity.
> Germany is the only country I'm aware of other than Islamist theocracies that goes after people posting lewds with such an insane ferocity.
Well that's because this prosecution has been automated by the "Landesmedienanstalten" with "KIVI" which automatically scans most larger sites with UGC. From what I've heard they don't seem to seize anything in these prosecutions -- which is quite unusual, normally German police will seize all "digital devices" from suspected cybercriminals (just for a few years).
Increasing prosecutions by a factor X is seen as a huge success by the "Medienanstalten" btw., they boast quite openly about this on their own websites. More prosecution is more gooder.
I mean none of this is particularly surprising, these offices and their laws are one of the main driving forces behind mandatory ID checks and internet censorship in germany. Your comparison to similarly behaving theocratic executives is apt, especially considering the prussian origin of the underlying laws.
Which would be true, if Weimar germany was some sort of free speech heaven, which is what led to nazi germany. But it wasn't, and it didn't. The proof is literally right in your comment. One of the countries that had such unrestricted freedom of speech (the USA) was fighting the nazis, not being part of them. Weimar Germany had many more restrictions on speech than the USA had back then.
You might want to take a step back and consider that free speech had nothing to do with the holocaust. At most, it is a great way to justify censorship and pretend that restricting speech is somehow antifascist while also feeling morally superior, but it has no basis on reality.
Also, it is pretty ironic to say that the USA's policy is bad because they never had to see remanents of a holocaust... which is certainly a hot take.
On the subject of Ukraine and Russia this hasn't happened yet. Yandex, their Open Source and Clickhouse so far have relatively little of this issue. ( Not saying there aren't, but mostly below a 5% threshold )
Not the same could be said on other subject matters though, especially those that involves American politics and Culture War. Political sensitivity on HN went through the root in the past 6-7 years. Although things has die down a lot in the past 6 - 8 months. But I am not surprised OP decided to play it safe.
I wonder if the BIN/IIN (Bank/Issuer Identification Number[0]) of canary cards give it away. For this to work against sophisticated attackers, I'd expect a canary card to be indistinguishable from a regular one, though I still love the ingenuity of it.
edit: They mention this in the article, I missed it.
