No, it's unfortunate that the authors didn't understand the license they used. It is not unfortunate that the license allows this use since that's the entire purpose of its existence, and is one of the most advantageous to users.
Framing adherence to the license as "bad actors" is just ridiculous emotional bias. Use a more restrictive license if you want to restrict the use of your code.
The most truth comes from adversarial systems, motivated to find flaws in the other. There's nothing inherently wrong with being partisan. The problem comes when people align themselves to a single news org that only shows one side. Having news orgs in the middle is great too, of course, but the motivation to not rock the boat might be greater.
In theory I agree. In practice, with journalism, different camps tend to create their own information bubbles and then they get filled with propaganda and copium. I'm not sure what the solution is, but there was a high point for journalism and we are well past it now. To call what some organization put out information is doing some heavy lifting these days.
I suspect part of the problem here is that all the lawyers involved get a steady income, if they can keep it going for as long as possible. Self preserving machines form wherever a flow of money exists.
I think you underestimate how intense drawing text is, with all the aliasing and whatnot that goes on, spanning the full width of a 4k monitor, and don't realize all the IDEs you mention are GPU accelerated. You can get a feel for its worth by using a terminal that isn't GPU accelerated, or turn off GPU acceleration in VSCode, Microsoft office, etc. Add in images and video, and you get people complaining about poor battery life.
It's either you peg a CPU while simply scrolling, or your GPU does a small amount of power efficient, buttery smooth, work.
This is a very good reply! I stand corrected, and thank you to do so in a very polite and succinct manner. A better way to think about GPUs in 2026: They are used as a co-processor and are very efficient to paint pixels.
If I made something for fun, for the public, for free, and it exploded into common use, I would be super happy that I made something useful. But, I also always license any software I write (outside of work) as public domain like.
We are social creatures, and wanting to impress fellow beings is part of the reason why we do original things.
When you made something public domain pre-LLMs, you generally could expect people to give kudos to you.
With LLMs, if you make something public and an LLM gobbles it up, not only you get zero credit but you also can’t convincingly claim to have come up with it (since anyone can just assume you used an LLM), and neither can anyone else (even if they have come up with it fully independently).
If you don’t seek any recognition for your original work, then that’s fine, but I suspect you might be in a minority.
I mean if information is decentralized, this is not far from the truth. Historically attribution was given because you could synthesize or create information in a way others could not, and it was useful to be able to trace things back to the source.
Now everyone can create everything, and the source is shared. You are adding to the pile of human knowledge and it gets processesed, that's it.
If you step aside and think about it from a holistic perspective, imagine a research project to find a cure for cancer, or the best compression algorithm, or whatever.
Who will find the solution faster:
1) Entities work in isolation, produce their results, gets attribution, and then it's integrated into other work.
2) Entities work in parallel, dumping their findings and work into a big pile that is continuously parsed and built upon.
The second approach does not discriminate partial or bad results, it does not place value on a specific contribution. It might be that two entities did partial solutions that only make sense together, and this is able to be synthesized on the fly.
I don't understand psychologists interest in Freud, someone who was completely and entirely objectively wrong about everything.
It would be like physicists constantly including references/comparisons to Aristotelian Mechanics, or flat Earthers.
Why put any consideration or thought into something known-to-be completely wrong? I can't comprehend it. For me, it completely discredits anything they're trying to say. Maybe there was something interesting, I don't know, I gave up after I saw 25 hits for "Freud". I don't enjoy pseudoscience.
1. Someone else who isn't you figured out how wrong Freud was.
2. What is considered "intuitive" changes over time because of those questions you never had to consider and the answers that you now do.
The less curious you are about the past, the more likely you are to repeat its mistakes. Do not consider yourself immune. It's the people who are as dismissive as you are that are most highly at risk!
This is all a self inflicted wound though. Weeks are still spent on him, and his pseudoscience, in intro psychology classes, and still brought up in higher level courses. People only know about him because psychologists won't stop talking about him. Here's one sentence that could be used to stop the cycle, any time a desire to talk about Freud comes up: Freud introduced the concept of psychoanalysis, but his framework and findings are in no way relevant to science, so will be left to the reader.
And the torture ends!
I don't believe it's necessary to go into depth about all the ideas that were wrong, through all of history.
Physicists and epistemologs do refer to Aristotle and flat earthers all the time. Maybe with more critical mindset and as a will to exemplify what they consider undesirable outcomes, but still they cite them all the time.
It's hard to dodge totally a figure that the discipline itself sell as a founding member or a representative of what is antinomic to these foundations yet enjoy some persistent followers.
> completely and entirely objectively wrong about everything.
You mean things like:
* people not being fully rational, but also having unconscious thought processes
* human mind consisting of multiple sub-agents that sometimes have different goals
* hypnosis not being necessary to cure problems, mere talking can achieve the same effect
* sex being an important force in human psychology
...or something else specifically?
When talking about people in the past, you may want to consider that everything they were right about sounds to us now as obvious (sometimes, thanks to them), so yeah it seems like everyone in the past only had two kinds of opinions: obvious, and wrong.
Amen. I too am curious (sic) why any rational person would want to bury a fascinating subject like curiosity by entangling it with obsolete fantasy-based sophistry like freudianism. Employing but a wee bit of fair-minded imagination instead would surely yield more fruitful and substantial insights.
And was there a book review hiding beneath all that noxious palaver? TL-DR. I'd genuinely like to know. Curiosity deserves better inquiry and illumination than the few books I've seen on the topic.
If I'm using one of these services while connected to a guest wifi network, with the usual configuration for guest access (like no intranet connections), is that guest wifi network compromised? What's the threat model?
I'd say yes since you've allowed random people unauthorized use of the connection. It makes no difference if it's your connection or not. For example, if that proxy gets used as part of a DDoS attack, your device compromised that network.
how is this different than Tor? You seem a bit on the surveillance side. The computer/network is compromised if someone gains unauthorized access to it not if you share it.
> The computer/network is compromised if someone gains unauthorized access to it not if you share it.
Yes. And someone did get unauthorized access to it. You don't have the permission to delegate authorization to a third party.
Did the third party connect to the guest wifi or did they connect to your computer and you have allowed them access to the guest wifi?
Did they agree to the ToS that the wifi network requires for people to use it?
Are you certain that the wifi network isn't intentionally limiting the area where it is broadcast, allowing only people within that geographic area the ability to connect to it?
If there is a purely 100% open wifi network who is only limited geographically due to technological constraints but would allow anyone in the world to connect to it if the technology allowed, then using your device to solve the technological constraint of limited wifi range would not fall under compromising the network IMO. Assuming again that the operator of the network publicized it as such and you aren't just making assumptions about their intentions.
That's mind bending gimnastics. So if you connect a device(i.e. a TV) to WiFi and there is a Netflix app that's downloading movies in background then Netflix has gained unauthorized access to the network because somehow is not `directly` connected to the home router(like a kind of long cable from directly from netflix server into the home router ) ? Did Netflix agree to the ToS of the Wi-Fi network provider? What a stupid thing to say...I would expect more from this community.
> So if you connect a device(i.e. a TV) to WiFi and there is a Netflix app that's downloading movies in background then Netflix has gained unauthorized access to the network
There are two main differences. Netflix is working on your behalf. Connections initiated from netflix are no different from connections initiated from your web browser or your email client. Your use of the internet, for you, is authorized. With a proxy you have no idea who is connected or what they are doing with that connection. That network activity uses you, but isn't by you, or for you.
Finally, netflix isn't likely to be hacking, attacking, spamming, or attempting to bypass bans or IP blacklists over that connection, but those are exactly the kinds of activities that shady residential proxies are used for. By using those kinds of apps you basically backdoor/bot your own computer, and now access to the internet through it is being sold to people who want to use it for things that they couldn't get away with when using a VPN or any other legitimate provider.
Depending on the sophistication of the wifi network you may be held liable and accountable for everything that takes place over that connection, including whatever nasty things the people who bought access to your proxy get up to.
If the wifi system isn't set up to keep careful track of who is using it and when (as is common in places like coffee shops), the liability will fall to the entity offering the wifi access, and if that connection is repeatedly used for activity in violation of the law, or the AUP of the ISP being used, that same entity will face the repercussions. Their internet connection may be temporarily suspended. They may have to start blocking certain ports and services, or deny access to specific websites. They may even be forced to stop providing wifi access to guests entirely unless they are willing/able to spend the money needed to log and monitor who is using their connection and respond to notifications of abuse over their network as well as legal requests.
Places like coffee shops that just want to offer free wifi to their customers without worrying about that kind of thing are only able to do that because a small number of local individuals are using their connection. Locals who presumably enjoy being able to the internet at that location and won't take advantage by abusing it. Individuals who are also typically on camera, in full view of employees and other customers.
That kind of very common set up is insecure by nature and those companies are putting themselves at risk by offering the service, but it mostly works because the access is time/location-gated and most people in the neighborhood are generally not criminals. Allowing criminals from all over the globe to access those kind of connections through your device is allowing unauthorized access, and is also being a dick, since you're basically shitting in the pool everybody wants to be able to swim in. It greatly increases the risk that the wifi gets shut down, gets more locked down, or the IP address gets blacklisted making it less useful for everybody who uses it, including you.
If that guest WiFi network is running inside the White House? Yes, I'd say that is compromised. The threat model being that guests on that network may be diplomatic officials and staff.
You've confused intranet access with internet access. Guest networks rarely have intranet access, even between clients. They usually exist for "I don't trust this person on my network, but they want internet access".
We tried to adopt a cat once from a local shelter. If there was any indication that you would let the cat outside, for any period of time, they would reject the application. Also, if there was any indication you would ever leave the cat alone for 10 hours or more, they would reject the application. So, we left all those cats in the shelter, where there were almost certainly terminated, and bought a kitten from some random people on craigslist.
After that cat passed, we tried to adopt a dog from the local shelters. All required an interview and house visit, with random unscheduled visits within the 6 months after. We bought a puppy from some random kid.
edit: "any indication that you would let the cat outside" and "outdoor cat" are not the same thing. I failed because I said we had a patio we would let the cat sit on, in nice weather, on the second floor, or because we were going to see if we could leash train it (my friend had with his cat). I don't know, the lady seemed very angry the whole interview. The leash training failed before it made its way outdoors, but the sun was enjoyed.
You're allowed to lie on your application to the shelter. But you should also not let your cat outside because cats are bird murder machines.
A house visit to adopt a dog seems excessive. But this might be organizational scar tissue: mentally ill people adopting and hoarding animals, for example.
Depending on the jurisdiction, any adoption contract that says you have to allow unscheduled visits 6 months after may not be enforceable. Treat your adopted pet well and tell anyone who interferes to f off.
In a lot of ways typical farm cats are more natural than dogs. The distance between those cats and the undomesticated variety isn’t that wide.
Most domesticated cats demonstrably have no issues thriving while feral. They are not well-adapted to every environment they’ve been introduced but they do pretty well in many. Their main issue in places like North America is prodigious predation in the wild, which is mitigated when living near humans.
Farm cats are working animals, and they make up a tiny fraction of the “outside cat”
population. Not really a fair comparison. Roaming/feral domestic cats in residential area are an invasive species and “do pretty well” the same way other pests do.
I don't get it. I sooooo don't get it. I grew up in a rural area, we had many cats and we really loved all of them. Cats had complete freedom - they'd leave whenever they'd feel like it, they'd go wherever they wanted to go, engaged in social life with other cats including fights over territory and mates, hunted, played, explored, sometimes they'd be gone for days, but they'd always return, love us, stay with us and enjoy our company. I was so happy to let the cats be cats and I am not getting a new cat because I live in an apartment complex and I cannot let it be a cat there, I'd feel horrible about confining it to 40 square meters. I really like to think that the cats I owned got to be cats to its fullest. Unfortunately, they also haven't lived for long, with 4 years being tops due to stray dogs around, cars, other cats, etc, but I'd rather have it that way than treat it like a house fixture.
Some people like birds. If you look at the cat density in suburbs or villages it is essentially like a horror movie for birds. We feed those cats, so they can exist in a far higher density than the prey population would support but they still have the passion to kill every prey with gusto after toying with it for as long as possible.
This doesn't make sense to me. They like birds so much that they want all the cat owners to imprison their cats? But both cats and birds are wild animals. They eat and be eaten. Isn't it just how it works? For animals, it's just the full package.
Come off it, domestic cats are literally a separate species bred from captivity. It is not “imprisoning” them to keep them in their natural environment (the home). They are not native to any ecosystem.
Oh, and we never took a cat from a shelter or from some other institution, we exclusively either adopted stray cats or took one from friends whose cat gave birth. We haven’t sterilized or castrated our cats either and were very responsible about giving away born kittens to people that will take care of them.
Cats are non-trivial to contain in the owner's yard, and will attack other animals. Sometimes that is the intention (e.g. barn cats), other times is unwelcome attacks on wildlife (e.g. birds). My family also had to deal with vet bills due to a cat that attacked our dog. While I wouldn't consider letting a cat outdoors abusive, it is certainly disrespectful to neighbours.
The other thing about shelters is they often deal with animals from abusive or neglectful homes. Random visits are likely excessive, but they are just trying to prevent the animal from enduring the same situation with new owners (and likely trying to ensure the new owners can handle an animal that has a history of being abused).
The shelter is doing its job: outdoor cats live a shorter life due to fights, cars, disease, predation, etc. And not only that, but they also decimate the local songbird population, which is already in great decline.
If songbirds are your concern, you'd do worlds more for them by getting your neighbors to replace their lawns with shrubbery than by fretting over a couple spoiled cats too stuffed with tinned food to catch anything.
Obviously you don’t actually have a feral cat population around you. They are generally good hunters that kill for sport. Cats, foxes, and humans are the only species that do that.
The discussion is about house cats and whether owners are obliged to keep them inside.
Feral cats have different behavior, and in fact having sterilized house cats marking and protecting territory tends to reduce the number of feral cats that take residence.
That's simply not true, and as I wrote originally, habitat loss through human landscaping and chemical pest/weed control has an absurdly larger impact on bird population and diversity than all the guileless house cats that will ever prowl a neighborhood.
Bringing up habitat loss from humans is a classic whataboutism. Do you care about neighborhood dogs shitting in your yard? Cause I’m tired of cats doing it
And they dig up gardens and poop everywhere. People get so up in arms about dog owners not picking up poop on walks you’d think they would understand it’s not cool to let your cat do the same thing on other people’s property.
When I was a kid we adopted two kittens from a local cat rescue. They made us sign a document saying we would never allow the cats outside. One got out when she was a few months old, and she developed an obsession with the outdoors and would spend hours each day scratching at the door and licking her fur off, and occasionally she would escape and us kids would chase her around the yard until we could get her back in. We did the exact same indoor cat enrichment activities with her and her sister, who never developed a desire to get out.
Eventually we took the one with the outdoors obsession to the vet who told us we could either put her on Prozac or start letting her out. At that point we started letting her out (in our quiet suburb nowhere near a major road), and she instantly became an extremely happy cat. Her sister lived as a happy indoor cat, while she would go out during the day and come in at night. She came back every night and they both lived to pass of kidney disease when they were 15.
I know a lot of people are extremely against cats going outside, but compared to some of my college friends who kept "emotional support" cats in minuscule dorm rooms, I would much rather let a cat out than imprison it. I don't really buy the songbird thing in built up suburbia.
Not all cats can even hunt. They all like to think the could, yelling at birds, but its an actual skill. Of all 10 cats I had over my life only 1 could actually hunt at all. Even that cat’s own brother could not hunt at all.
We're pretty sure her indoor sister could hunt but she couldn't. She never brought us a dead bird or mouse, and we watched her jump at and fail to catch birds frequently. Her sister would deliver us a mouse once a year or so.
In some parts of the US outdoor cats are an essential bulwark against rodent invasion. It is healthy for the cats and very effective organic rodent control. They do get some birds but the bulk of their activity is rodents. There are places you can’t live without them.
Depending on the situation, outdoor cats can also live a long time. We had farm cats when I was growing up that spent a large part of their time outdoors during the day. They were smart, social, and typically lived 15-20 years before old age caught up with them.
Predation mostly impacts cats that are either obviously stupid or aggressively anti-social in my experience.
The reason for all the friction is that terrible people did terrible things to shelter animals. Is it perfect? No, but it is a situation with few better paths forward.
It's not even particularly good, let alone perfect. Shelters, in my experience, are the poster children for "the perfect is the enemy of the good". They would do a lot more good for the animals in their care by relaxing their standards.
No, it's unfortunate that the authors didn't understand the license they used. It is not unfortunate that the license allows this use since that's the entire purpose of its existence, and is one of the most advantageous to users.
Framing adherence to the license as "bad actors" is just ridiculous emotional bias. Use a more restrictive license if you want to restrict the use of your code.
reply