You might start with the documents posted to the EFF site over the past year. For example, the September opposition letters include specific court decisions and put them in context, including commentary from law professors.

https://www.eff.org/search/site/pera

It’s re-posted from a news community, where it was since removed for not being from an acceptable news site. Unfortunately, the acceptable news sites covered this more than 30 days ago, which disqualifies their articles regardless of whether they were ever posted to the community. shrug

I couldn’t find a better article in the time I had to spare, so I re-posted this one. I think what’s important in this case is just that word gets out. I don’t see anything misleading about this one, and the EFF link (which is also not exactly a news site) is plainly visible.

My condolences. Unfortunately, people are sometimes designated the in-house expert on a thing just because they seem slightly less ignorant of it than anyone else in the organization. That leaves more than a few people making decisions that impact security and privacy without good understanding or sound judgment in those areas.

Maybe you should train up and become your state’s new security expert?

This is one of the more important reasons to minimize dependencies and be very picky about the ones we adopt.

“Welcome to the dark side of cozy.”

It’s important to post these things every so often. There will never be a day when everyone already knows. :)

https://xkcd.com/1053/

It’s a bit of a leap to say the “owner” changed. Ryujinx is MIT licensed, allowing anyone to clone the original code locally, build upon it, and publish it to a public host. Looks to me like that’s what happened here: a fork, but without using github’s built-in “fork” feature, perhaps to avoid being included in a mass take-down. There are others on non-github sites, although I don’t know if they have been getting new commits.

I don’t see any reason to think the original repo was renamed or moved to another user’s account. The top contributor is gdkchan presumably because gdkchan’s commit history was preserved.

For the record, gdkchan’s last commit to the original repo was on 2024-10-01.

Edit: The README confirms what I thought:

This fork is intended to be a QoL uplift for existing Ryujinx users. This is not a Ryujinx revival project.

Beware online “filter bubbles” (2011) - Eli Pariser

https://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles

Don’t assume too much from the headline, folks. They’re not saying everything has to be rewritten by 2026. They’re saying new product lines serving critical infrastructure should be written in memory-safe languages, and existing ones should have a memory safety roadmap.

If you’re about to post about how you think that’s unreasonable, I think you should explain why.

You could always test the waters by writing up a few of your workarounds in Lemmy posts, and seeing how much interaction they draw. If they’re well-received, the effort of building and maintaining a blog might be worthwhile.

Ah, so it is. I wonder when that happened. I guess .world might have outgrown beehaw’s ability to make up for spotty moderation.

I’m pretty sure they don’t block sdf. That’s where I am, and I’ve had several interactions with Beehaw folks while here. :)

Fun fact: Beehaw and sdf are among the few well-known instances that don’t hand their users’ traffic (all their activity on Lemmy) over to Cloudflare.

I know by having seen it discussed in one or two beehaw communities, but you can look it up here:

https://beehaw.org/instances

One of those is dead.

One is blocked by OP’s instance.

One is hosted on an instance that more than a few people avoid.

One is nearly empty, but maybe worth joining and starting some discussion? [email protected]

Your account info says you joined Lemmy a couple of years ago. Could that have something to do with it? Could be that there are simply fewer of us here than wherever you were before.

Also, if Reddit is one of your haunts, keep in mind that a lot of communities there partially dispersed a little over a year ago, and not everyone has reappeared in the same place (or at all).

The argument against it is founded on copyright.

We fund copyright in order to enrich our culture, by incentivizing creative works.

Blocking creative works preservation strips away the cultural enrichment.

What’s left? People being compelled through taxes to fund profit police for copyright holders who aren’t holding up their end of the bargain.

Edit: Note also that publishers and their lobby groups are not artists. They are parasites. They are paid more than fairly for their role in getting creative works out there in the first place. I can’t think of any reason why they should have continued control after they’ve stopped publishing them.

Technologies accelerate all sorts of agendas, but to blame this long-standing problem specifically on tech companies is to misunderstand the problem. Corporations shouldn’t have been allowed much influence on governance in the first place, no matter what their tools or line of business might be.

Instead of pointing fingers, how about we stop allowing corporate political donations and lobbyists in democracies, and put some real enforcement behind anti-corruption and bribery laws?

Unfortunately, I don’t think D is good enough to prove your point. From your follow-up comment:

A language that for all intents and purposes is irrelevant despite being exactly what everyone wanted,

As someone who uses D, I can attest that it is not what everyone wanted; at least not yet. Despite all the great things in the language, the ergonomics around actually using it are mediocre at best: Several of its appealing features quickly turn it into a noisy language, error messages are often so obtuse as to be useless (especially with templates and contracts in play), and Phobos (the standard library) is practically made of paper cuts. Also, the only notable async support is a fragile mess, and garbage collection is too deeply embedded into both the stdlib and the ecosystem.

(To be fair, D could be vastly improved with better defaults and standard library. That might happen in time, as Walter and the other maintainers have shown interest, but it’s just wishful thinking for now.)

Also, D is an entirely different language from C++, and as such, would require code rewrites in order to bring safety to existing projects. It’s not really comparable to a C++ extension.

Is this going to be re-posted every month?

That was a different community.

Also: https://xkcd.com/1053/

Given how long and widely C++ has been a dominant language, I don’t think anyone can reasonably expect to get rid of all the unsafe code, regardless of approach. There is a lot of it.

However, changing the proposition from “get good at Rust and rewrite these projects from scratch” to “adopt some incremental changes using the existing tooling and skills you already have” would lower the barrier to entry considerably. I think this more practical approach would be likely to reach far more projects.