Assuming fiduciary duty didn’t exist, what would the claim be in the lawsuit about morally distasteful business choices?

Generally I’m not aware of any civil claim that would let shareholders sue over bad morals.

Modern shareholder law is definitely a strange business. People have successfully brought suits for a variety of bad-but-not-illegal causes. There were a lot of lawsuits about sexual harassment and climate change, I believe the theory being that “bad thing will make the stock go down, and the company didn’t disclose that they might do the bad thing”. Then more recently a lawsuit against target proceeded (I don’t see whether it’s completed yet) despite target having disclosed the risk (in this case of their DEI activity).

The claim in the suit is notably that the company failed to disclose the behavior, not that they did the behavior (Target notwithstanding), which mostly agrees with your line of questioning.

Ok, but "Everything is securities fraud" (pace Matt Levine) isn't really what we're talking about here. E.I.S.F. cuts against the Chicago School "shareholder value" thing as often as not.

> The hope is that eventually, so much software is GPL that you effectively have two choices when writing something

I’m really glad then that it didn’t work out this way, because I wasn’t really keen on all the individual freedom of joining the borg.

Which "individual freedom" do you feel the GPL denies you? As far as I can tell, it only prevents you from piggybacking on other people's work, and adding unfair stipulations to the resulting product. It is a very symmetrical, "do-unto-others" type license.

In the scenario you’re describing, when I write my own code, I am limited in what license I can pick for that code because of licensing choices other people made.

But you're not actually restricted from doing anything, are you? What is it exactly you want to do that other people's choice of GPL prevents? Steal their work and sell it? Oh how unfair!

Say more about how licensing my code as MIT would be unfair.

My pleasure!

We are talking about a hypothetical universe in which nearly all software is GPL, such that it is almost impossible to write useful software without building upon other GPL code. In such a universe, licensing "your" code as MIT would indeed be unfair, because you would be taking the work of others, illegally stripping the label, and making it available to profitable interests to use without compensation to the original developers against their express wishes - said compensation merely being the extremely reasonable request to share back, as you were shared to.

You still haven't really explained why you're so keen on doing that sort of thing.

> licensing "your" code as MIT would indeed be unfair, because you would be taking the work of others, illegally stripping the label, and making it available to profitable interests to use without compensation to the original developers against their express wishes

I'm not sure why there are quotes around "your".

If I write code and license it MIT, but it includes code that has a different non-GPL license (lets say Apache), my code is MIT-licensed, and the included code is still Apache-licensed.

I haven't illegally (or legally) stripped any licenses, or changed how it's available to others. I've picked a license for code I wrote, and the developers of code I took a dependency on picked a license for their code. People who want to use my code have to consider the license of my code and also the dependencies I used.

The GPL is largely unique in its desire to control what license I can pick for my own code.

I'm keen on picking my own license for my own code because I personally don't want to block my code from being used by anybody, commercially or otherwise. I've got no issue with developers who do want to prevent closed-source, commercial, or any other kind of downstream usage. And I'm happy to comply with the licenses of code that I leverage as part of my code. I do take issue with developers who want to impose their licensing preferences on my code.

Why do we need to gatekeep “homelab”?

Terms making defined sense aid in conversation.

Why do you need to dilute the term? There is nothing wrong with your NAS running 3 apps that you press update once a year not being called "homelab" but just "a NAS"

> Why do you need to dilute the term?

Nobody is diluting anything. This person posted the setup they have in their home. It’s their homelab.

It’s not diluting any terms for them to call it that. Their setup is just as much a homelab as somebody else’s 48U rack.

It’s just a dick move, and against the rules of the site, to see somebody’s earnest post about their tech setup and post a shallow dismissal about how their setup isn’t deserving of your imagined barrier to entry.

They are not researching anything. They just want to have few things running.

The whole idea of homelab (regardless of size) is learning first.

He just have home server. It's okay to call it that

Oh. Now the imaginary gate is “research”?

Is the average person really using Tailscale? This seems plenty deep enough

Quit whining, you know damn well the bar for a typical "Show HN" has been raised to the point of being irrelevant these days, this post is a perfect example. This is not a home lab.

I'm happy for the OP and that it works for him. That said:

The equivalent of Joe Bloggs installing Linux onto an old laptop is neither curious nor interesting, let's not pretend it is because feelings.

This isn't a Show HN, and also I think you mean "lowered" given the tone of your post.

It's also been on the front page for most of the day on its own merits. It's clear you don't like the article. The guidelines are clear that you're expected to either engage constructively or just move along.

I think if you’re playing around with apps & Tailscale on your NAS, it’s a homelab.

I would agree with this. Markdown by definition is a markup language that’s designed to be easily read/written and also rendered.

There’s nothing wrong with showing markdown unrendered, but it’s odd to claim it was “meant to be” unrendered.

The thread is about the code in the std lib being a huge amount of work because the code in the std lib needs to be kept working with new language releases.

And then you answered about downstream code breakage totally outside the std lib.

> customers would bring lawsuits against ISPs and cell providers

What would the case be against ISPs here?

Failure to provide the contracted service. If you pay for internet, but they aasign you an IP that is already blacklisted, you are not getting internet.

I don’t see any way for that to work out.

Your ISP is not responsible for ensuring that the connection they give you works to access any particular sites (see, for example, all the sites that already implement geo-fencing to block or alter the experience based on country of origin).

And if the blacklist is on the upstream provider? So you literally cannot send packets beyond your residential ISP? Have fun surfing the comcast homepage.

It’s not clear what you’re trying to say. Nobody’s arguing that 3rd parties blocking ASs, ISPs, regions, etc is fun for the people who get blocked.

But that doesn’t somehow create a civil case against your ISP for not acting in response to the 3rd party action.

So if I drive my Toyota to the corner store and they tell me to go away, I'm not welcome, I should sue Toyota for failing to get me to the store?

They have opt-in consent: it’s a known part of the US ham licensing process that the database is public and searchable, and nobody is forced to get a ham license.

In fact, several of the questions on the ham test involve the fact that you can look up operator info online.

That isn't opt-in consent!

If you type your name and address into the HN comment box and hit submit, you have opted in to having your address visible in a comment on HN.

The ham registration is the same. Before you can take the test to get licensed, you have to go to the FCC website and enter your information into their public database. It’s clear what you’re doing, you have to actively choose to do it, and it’s the direct outcome of the action you take.

Your amateur radio license is only active when:

You’re making the same mistake the EFF’s post wants you to make.

Employees were trained on how to identify and respond to CSAM. The training material was not released based on the FOIA request.

That doesn’t imply that the employees were poking around above and beyond where they had to look to do their job, and it doesn’t imply that full copies of your hard drive are being copied to the FBI.

It can die once we stop letting it keep living with this kind of defeatist attitude

Can you link to a distro config that defaults to that?

No, it's experimental. But I run it on all my machines, the only time I've had a problem is when it caught a typo in a DS record.

Nobody has ever disputed that you could run a fully recursive cache on your workstation, only that any ordinary user ever does.

You can see at this point how hollow "DNSSEC" is as an answer to the problem of this thread.

I'm guessing I do. Anyways: no question that there are a variety of experimental setups in which you can address the problem of on-path attackers trivially disabling DNSSEC, freeing you up to work on the next, harder set of DNSSEC security and operational problems.