Yes. It also has all the original conversation below the posts restored. The theme doesnt matter that much to me because I can control the display of a page client side, using something like Mercury or Dark Reader etc. In fact, I quite like the lack of a theme, leaving it entirely up to me. (Not that your theme in any way impedes that same freedom.)
I'm not sure I follow. Is the value add you bring to his blog the theming?
I ask because, the curated index you offer could just link back to the original posts.
Given everything else being equal, I would prefer to read the original source over a mirror. I then dont have to verify it is an accurate representation, and they dont have to be kept in sync if things change on the source end. Maybe a separate clickable link at the end of each line that takes you to the original post would be helpful. (orig) A link blog / pure index model would also run less afoul of any sort of copyright issue, if you wanted to extend this concept to other blogs. I would personally encourage this, shifting to a more generalized linkblog that links outward to other sscesque writing. It makes your offering more unique than a theme and index.
I definitely find the OP's perspective a little obnoxious. Being less-wrong is actually fairly easy (in the grand scheme of things), the problem is that nobody cares about being right.
Yeah, hearing TG's UI/UX described as not good made me do a double take. It's the best UI I've ever seen in a chat app, and I've probably used at least a dozen by now.
>The actors I've seen taking advantage of it are highly unlikely to front up with a credit card and provide what amounts to personally identifiable data (i.e. make a credit card payment) in order to mass enumerate the API.
Unless they just steal a credit card. Not unlikely, given who we're talking about here.
>as soon as legislation is introduced by governments to make the parties producing software or hardware responsible for the stuff they dump on the open market.
AKA the plausible end of open source. Once writing any program and sharing it can get you sued, people will stop doing that.
That depends on the way legislation is written of course. If you provide an open source package for free, there's no real transaction so you can't claim responsibility from anyone. Same if it's a free closed source product. But, if you sell software and neglect security issues within the warranty of said product, you should be held accountable, open source or not.
Such legislation should not be there to allow (class action) lawsuits but should be upheld by a government body, responding to complaints from the general public.
Problems with open source can also be solved by requiring companies who do not wish to take responsibility to give users to either sign a waiver (explicit, no TOS bullshit) or return the product immediately in exchange for money back. With open source software, there is no money given, so no problem. With closes source software, this highlights the vendor's behaviour regarding security support and might make consumers think twice before going with certain vendors.
Another way to do this would be to require vendors to put a clearly visible, standardised sticker/tag/image on their products detailing the support life cycle (warranty / software updates / security updates), similar to the nutrition information found on many food products. That way, consumers can shop around or hold a company responsible of their smart thermostat suddenly stops working because the company behind it got bought out by Google.
There are tons of variations of bases for legislation, but I don't see why physical and digital goods are that different.
If my CCTV system short cirtcuits and causes a fire, the company behind it can be held responsible for mot recalling the decices if the flaw was well known. If my CCTV camera has a known flaw that let's hackers in without authentication to record my alarm code so that they can break in, suddenly we're in the wild west of software support where you're on your own. Why is there such a difference?
