hashar

To quote the readme:

> The implementation language is a detail, and a Python port is welcome.

I guess the post title could have dropped "in rust"

From my recalling, a few years at most. There was, and apparently still exists, distributed.net which was aimed at brute forcing DES (easy), RC5-56 bits and then RC5-64 bits by establishing a web of personal computers (via a client one had to install). Thus it was well known brute forcing was achievable in a reasonable time.

PGP (1991) was considered secure as it was considered not brute forceable. With 128 bits, it was considered military grade at the time and the US had an export restriction due to that. That might have been an incentive for GNU Privacy Guard. In France you had to give your private key to the government authority if an encryption system used anymore than 56 bits (as I recall, I don't remember the exact number).

Copyright IS an issue to Debian, and always has been for the last 30 years or so. They are, rightfully so, extremely picky when it comes to respecting copyright and licensing. It is the 0.01%.

> Who the f*ck cares who made it? A monkey could have made it for all I care. If it does what it claims to do, and I understand how, it's all good.

Copyright laws do care. As an example one can send a patch claiming its their own but because they had do it under their employer duty, the copyright might well be associated to their employer rather than them individually. Does the patch does what it claims to? Surely. Is that a copyright infringement? DEFINITELY SO.

The copyright rationale for the first proposition (Choice 1: Ban LLM contributions from Debian via Social Contract):

> 1. Copyright

> -------------

>

> LLM output has very unclear legal status: it may be possible to copyright on its own merits, or not; it may be affected by all of the licenses and copyrights in the training data, or not.

> Debian Policy and the DFSG require absolute clarity for licensing and copyright[1][2]. Software and other contributions written conventionally by humans with unclear copyright or license status are not allowed in Debian; LLM output should not have a special exception to this.

This rationale states if there is doubt about the copyright of the code, it not suitable for inclusion. Until I guess LLM output get a clarification regarding who is the author of its output.

I still use « briques », typically « 10 briques » instead of « 100 k ». I think there is some poetry in sticking to the old obsolete term.

I do not understand why the scrappers do not do it in a smarter way: clone the repositories and fetches from there on a daily or so basis. I have witnessed one going through every single blame and log links across all branches and redoing it every few hours! It sounds like they did not even tried to optimize their scrappers.

« mann » comes from Old English and stands for a human being.

« wïfmann », literally "female human", led to « wife ».

« were » means man and comes from Germanic and I don't think « weremann » has ever been a thing.

Why add the complexity of having to maintain an Ansible installation, a logging stack, deal with their upgrades and whatever python issue one might encounter. I had the issue of Ansible builtin `shell` not doing the right thing (sh vs bash) or it being unnecessarily slow when uselessly looking up `cowsay`.

Adding layers and layers of tooling is often overkill and it is hard to bit the simplicity of 33 lines of shell when the use case is a single person doing the code, deployment and maintenance.

> inability to moderate which is really important for adult content

Given Elon Musk twitted about moderation being censorship (twist: it is not), what could go wrong!?!

I work for Wikimedia and I have been one of the few weirdos assisting in its creation back in the early 2000's. The first time I got exposed to wikis predates Wikipedia and my stance was:

- a site editable by anyone on the internet? That is never going to fly

Few months later I followed a link to Wikipedia and that clicked, we can definitely build an encyclopedia online and the hope (I was in my early 20's) or bet was that more people were wiling to write article than people willing to deface it. I guess we won that bet by a large margin :-]

Even if I was younger, I was not clueless. I was well aware some people would deface it and it did happen. I have also been involved in two very long and tedious fights with editors having a political agenda, which diverting me from actually writing articles. I think that is the real danger: shifting the focus of people from writing articles toward pointless long discussions.

As a non US person, I have a couple questions:

* What is P&A tech?

* How one retires at 25 when working at Google which is way past IPO and the 100x return on stock option which is only possible at the earliest stage?