Also last I heard Carbon was a temporary codename that they were going to replace with something else if/when the language ever became production ready, though I don't know whether that's still the plan.

I haven’t heard this, and with the number of conference talks and media done about it, if that were the plan I’d expect it to be pretty front and center so that those interested would be aware.

Unless Rust adds Swift-like C++ interop, which is a real possibility.

This has been recognised as the next important milestone for Rust and there's work towards making it happen. The details are uncertain yet, because move constructors are a big change for Rust (it promised that address of owned objects is meaningless, and they can be simply memcpy'd to a new address).

The Rust folks want a more usable Pin<> facility for reasons independent of C++ support (it matters for the async ecosystem) and Pin allows objects to keep their addresses once pinned.

This doesn't seem responsive to anything in the linked article.

In my tests, ChatGPT 5 Thinking can handle a monoalphabetic substitution cipher if you prompt it a couple times to keep going.

The argument the article is making is that if they really wanted YouTube downloaders to stop working, they'd switch to Encrypted Media Extensions. Do you think that's not plausible?

Many smart devices that have youtube functionality(tvs, refrigerators, consoles, cable boxes, etc), have limited or no ability to support that functionality in hardware, or even if they do, it might not be exposed.

Once those devices get phased out, it is very likely they will move to Encrypted Media Extensions or something similar, I believe I saw an issue ticket on yt-dlp's repo indicating they are already experimenting with such, as certain formats are DRM protected. Lookup all the stuff going on with SABR which if I remember right is either related to DRM or what they may use to support DRM.

Here has to be at least some benefit Google thinks it gets from youtube downloaders, because for instance there have been various lawsuits going after companies that provide a website to do youtube downloading by the RIAA and co, but Google has studiously avoided endorsing their legal arguments.

for example I think feature length films that YouTube sells (or rents) already use this encryption.

That’s why authors should pony up and pay for the encryption feature and rest should be free to download. YouTube could embed ads this way too.

That's a wildly imaginative fever dream you're having. There is no timeline in which content creators would pay YouTube to encrypt their video content.

Here's a thought: what if paying a fixed amount to encrypt your video would grant you a much higher commission for the ads shown?

Anything that's had an official YouTube app for the past nine years does, because it's been a hard requirement for a YouTube port that long.

It's much more likely YouTube just doesn't want to mess with it's caching apparatus unless it really has to. And I think they will eventually, but the numbers just don't quite add up yet.

Using DRM would make it illegal for YouTubers to use Creative-Commons-licensed content in their videos, such as Kevin MacLeod's music or many images from Wikipedia.

Yes, this absolutely does not shield YouTube from liability from third parties, since the copyright holder of third-party content included in the video is not a party to the agreement. That's why they have a copyright notice and takedown procedure in the first place, and also the reason for numerous lawsuits against YouTube in the past, some of which they have lost.

To date, many Creative Commons licenses do in fact amount to "permission from that party", but if they start using DRM, those licenses would cease to grant YouTube permission.

No it wouldn't.

You may not be very familiar with Creative Commons licensing. For example, CC BY-SA 4.0 would prohibit YouTube from using DRM:

> No downstream restrictions. You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to, the Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material.

(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode.en)

Most of the CC licenses include such language and have since the first versions.

> if they really wanted YouTube downloaders to stop working

Wrong question leads to the wrong answer.

The right one is "how much of the ad revenue would be lost if". For now it's cheaper to spend bazillions on a whack-a-mole.

I agree that bad-faith weaponization of discourse norms is a real problem these days. Unfortunately, unapologetic closed-mindedness is also a real problem these days. I would like to see more analysis that acknowledges both of these points and carefully considers how to thread the needle. Masnick obviously means well and is making reasonable points, but I think we're past the point in the discourse where it's possible to make progress while bringing up just one side of the tradeoff.

Isn't both-sidesing also a bad-faith weaponization of discourse? Make your own argument rather than demanding someone else makes it for you.

If I thought I knew how to solve the problem, I'd have said so. What I'm doing is pointing out that this style of argument isn't really helpful, because everyone already knows that "debate me, bro" is bad and a problem, so pointing it out as though it were a novel consideration doesn't advance the state of the discourse. What we haven't figured out is what to do about it; in particular, we need to invent discourse norms that are vulnerable neither to "debate me, bro" nor to just contemptuously ignoring counterarguments. Which is hard! But probably not impossible.

Is pointing this out as helpful as coming up with a real solution? No, of course not. But I don't have a real solution, so I'm sharing what I do have, which I think is at least slightly better than nothing even if it's not much better.

I don't think false balance is relevant here, because that's about the question of how to present a controversy to less-informed audiences, which isn't at issue in this case; if you're reading an internet argument then you probably have a decent understanding of how internet arguments tend to go and what makes them go wrong.

> because everyone already knows that "debate me, bro" is bad and a problem

No. They don't.

There are plenty of people—some of them right here on HN—who have bought into the idea that these debate-bros are just rationalists persuading people through good-faith argumentation.

That's why the debate bros do this: because it works on a lot of people.

So spreading awareness that they are bad-faith actors actively seeking to spread misinformation and cloud the truth for fun and profit, without any reference to some "other side" that is "just as bad", is very, very necessary.

I think its fine to be unconvinced by something without necessarily having a better argument.

Usually when people say "both siding", its more refering to an ad hominem falacy where someone tries to counter an argument by pointing to something bad the other side does that is separate (and hence irrelavent) to the original argument. I dont think that is what the person who you are responding to is doing because what they are saying is directly applicable to the issue at hand.

When I've seen "both siding" used it usually is about treating both sides of an argument equally when one is obviously rubbish.

Ah, i guess that is a common usage of "both sides" that is different than what i was thinking.

Usually i would describe it more as giving equal air time to opposing views despite the views not having equal prominance (e.g. In a news article about an eclipse you don't have to give equal air time to a flat earther)

"obviously rubbish" is doing a lot of work here. How do you gauge whether something is obviously rubbish?

As a case study, Wikipedia does the following:

"Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vie...

> "obviously rubbish" is doing a lot of work here. How do you gauge whether something is obviously rubbish?

If it defies orthodoxy, in most cases. At least that's my observation.

Most of the cases where I've seen complaints of "both-sidesing" is about mainstream media coverage that did not dismiss one major faction's position out of hand. Basically, a demand the journalist put on a judge hat and rule for the speaker's side. And it happened in the context of the cultural moment described here: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/the-bluesky-ization-of-the-ame....

>Isn't both-sidesing also a bad-faith weaponization of discourse?

Great question. Are there logical arguments for why both-sidesing/whataboutism is bad, backed up with evidence, and a comparative analysis against arguments that claim it is good? Surely there must be a rational basis for the claim so often made.

I think that closed-mindedness is the issue. I think bad-faith weaponization of discourse is closed-mindedness that wears a disguise. "No, really, I'm a reasonable person!" The unapologetically closed-minded at least is honest.

So I see the axis between the two as one of honesty, not one of closed-mindedness. The actual problem is to move both of them to a more open-minded position, not to balance honest vs. dishonest.

I don't think it's helpful to be open minded, if you've already become truly convinced of something.

I think it is good to stand firm in one's moral convictions.

It is also good to try to persuade others through debate of the truth if those convictions.

If other people are not as clear or as firm in their own convictions, they might be interested in listening and being persuaded.

It's part of America's constitution and freedom of speech and belief. Unlike France, for example, where religious speech in public (proselytizing) is an arrestable crime.

The thing I'm getting at here is not really about what's inside people's hearts. You can never know for sure whether your interlocutor is a saboteur. This is about what kinds of discourse norms society adopts, and what kinds of behavior participants are allowed to get away with.

The problem with having an oversensitive trolling detector is that then people can spew arbitrary nonsense and dismiss counterarguments as trolling, and observers don't get a chance to find out that what's being said doesn't withstand scrutiny. The problem with an undersensitive trolling detector is that discourse becomes an endurance contest rather than a test of who's actually right. Hence the need for a well-calibrated trolling detector, or rather, for norms that weight speech according to some reasonable proxy of whether it's the kind of contribution that stands or falls on its merits. This is the challenge.

There's a complaint I've seen against "sea-lioning" I think that's the term? Anyway it's apparently seeming reasonable while actually being unreasonable. Or something like that.

This seems to me to be a problem very low on the list of problems. Imagine we lived in a world filled with reasonable sounding people. Some of those people were in fact un-reasonable they just acted reasonable.

Would that world be better or worse then the reality we find ourselves in?

I think I at one point ran into this with Chase and the verbiage was not the same. Are you speaking from experience?

I am; I seem to recall it was Chase (and I do have a Chase account) but it could have been another bank or financial institution.

> Developers accustomed to language-specific dependency managers like npm or pip find it hard to grasp that for C++, the system's package manager (apt, dnf, brew) is the idiomatic way to handle dependencies.

Okay, but is that actually a good idea? Merely saying that something is idiomatic isn't a counterargument to an allegation that the ecosystem has converged on a bad idiom.

For software that's going to be distributed through that same package manager, yes, sure, that's the right way to handle dependencies. But if you're distributing your app in a format that makes the dependencies self-contained, or not distributing it at all (just running it on your own machines), then I don't see what you gain from letting your operating system decide which versions of your dependencies to use. Also this doesn't work if your distro doesn't happen to package the dependency you need. Seems better to minimize version skew and other problems by having the files that govern what versions of dependencies to use (the manifest and lockfile) checked into source control and versioned in lockstep with the application code.

Also, the GCC codebase didn't start incorporating C++ as an implementation language until eight years after Linus wrote that message.

I really enjoyed Matt Yglesias's take on The West Wing, and in particular on how it's a fair bit more realistic than it often gets credit for: https://www.slowboring.com/p/in-defense-of-the-west-wing

But they can't hack your Google or iCloud account if it's secured with a passkey, unless they have some other non-phishing means of doing so, which the attacker in this story presumably did not.

I had to reset the 2FA for a domain admin account for Google Apps earlier this year — I'm not sure if my password manager somehow lost the passkey, or if I missed creating one before some deadline. (It's a little-used domain.)

I think I requested the reset with various details, then had to wait 24 hours before continuing.

I feel like a lot of things would benefit from that time delay and, perhaps, an in person check like the notary ID verification AWS used to use.

About a decade ago I had suggested to Google at an identity forum that they embrace a local government/organization model for their hard-landing account recovery process (since it can ultimately devolve to an ID check) by having a mechanism where you can start the account reset process and get something which could be taken to a third party to approve after they do an ID check. As people increasingly depend on things like email accounts for everything there are a constant stream of people who will lose access to their phones but could easily visit a notary, library, DMV, police station, etc. and pass a check against a pre-registered government ID.