I think it’s like the distinction between art and obscenity; it’s not a nuanced distinction in the case in question. If it were, I’d largely trust UK courts to get it right (they are by-and-large capable of this, and much less politicised than their US counterparts).
I think unqualified freedom to say anything can lead to negative utility, pragmatically speaking. Malicious lies bring less than nothing to discourse.
I’m concerned that the libel system can be abused, of course; and I don’t approve of arresting octogenerians under the Prevention of Terrorism Act for shouting “nonsense!” at Jack Straw. But I don’t see there being a need to draw a distinction between online and in person speech, and I think that incitement to riot isn’t something I’d typically defend.
Having said that: I hope the woman in question (who has a history of being a deniable pot-stirrer) gets a trial rather than copping a plea, because the bounds of these things are worth testing.
In which case, perhaps unqualified “freedom of speech” isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
(I appreciate that Chomsky’s opinion resonates more with 1968 than now.)
Was at the time (as per usual).
Cf. previous comments about dogwhistles.
I think you’re spitting the situation on the wrong horn of Jefferson’s dilemma. They have the freedom to speak. It comes with the danger of being arrested if that speech meets the requirements of being an exhortation to violence.
I take it that you can see a distinction between “Vance fucks couches” and “burn those people in their hotel”. They are not the same thing.
If the distinction is hard to determine - that’s why there’s a judicial process.
Look up the original judgement on the Maya Forstater tribunal. “In a functioning democracy, some beliefs are not worthy of respect,” or words to that effect. If you think inciting racist riots shouldn’t be criminal, then write to your MP about it.
That’s the thing about dog-whistles.
The defence you posit is the same as a politician chosing words carefully to imply one thing, while technically not lying: for aome reason they think that’s a defence, but were a six-year-old try it they’d be straight off to the naughty step.
She lit a fire which was fanned by agents provocateurs from outside the country (ie, Farrage and Yaxley-Lennon). The useful idiots picked it up and rioted with it.
Figure eight on a bight.
That’d be Dame Cressida Dick, later promoted to Commissioner of the Met.
…unless it’s running software that uses signed 32-bit timestamps, or stores data using that format.
The point about the “millennium bug” was that it was a category of problems that required (hundreds of) thousands of fixes. It didn’t matter if your OS was immune, because the OS isn’t where the value is.
The test case purported to be bad data, which you presumably want to test the correct behaviour of your dearchiver against.
Nothing this did looks to involve memory safety. It uses features like ifunc to hook behaviour.
The notion of reproducible CI is interesting, but there’s nothing preventing this setup from repeatedly producing the same output in (say) a debian package build environment.
There are many signatures here that look “obvious” with hindsight, but ultimately this comes down to establishing trust. Technical sophistication aside, this was a very successful attack against that teust foundation.
It’s definitely the case that the stack of C tooling for builds (CMakeLists.txt, autotools) makes obfuscating content easier. You might point at modern build tooling like cargo as an alternative - however, build.rs and proc macros are not typically sandboxed at present. I think it’d be possible to replicate the effects of this attack using that tooling.
Experience. For what it’s worth, the instinct I distrust is absolutism.