r3trohack3r

Most things have tradeoffs

At some point you’re forced to stack rank two or more of your values in a case where they’re mutually exclusive

More confusing, they change the name of the protest when they organize in places that actually have a king.

Ah misunderstood. Thought this was about hosting the private server, not hosting the source code for a private server.

Why?

> The majority have clauses I dislike.

At least for the HOA I was a part of, the CC&Rs were nearly impossible to change. Getting elected didn’t give you the power to change them. They were a contract signed with each individual homeowner - changing them required getting consent from every homeowner individually.

Being on the board gave you power over how budget was allocated within those CC&Rs. I.E. the maintenance and upgrade of shared spaces. Vendor selection for violation detection/enforcement. Etc.

> Tor

This sounds like fairy dust for this use case. You’re playing a real time game where latency matters, and you’re running all that latency sensitive traffic through a network of relays running on altruism - each hop would introduce latency and you’d deal with contention in the network.

The play experience would be awful.

A random prediction does not have 50/50 odds of being correct

> get in trouble for that

> intent to murder

Two different things

Small nit:

If kitchen knife companies where, in fact, stabbing people to death in their R&D labs - I do believe they would get in trouble for that.

I would counter that it’s (or at least should be) a mission driven project.

That mission might be political - but the politics follow from the mission not the other way around.

The mission I’d personally like out of a product that fits Tor’s space is: the ability to unconditionally communicate securely and privately over the public Internet.

Saying that mission is inherently political, sure, you’re going to exclude people who disagree with the mission. That’s kinda the point.

But saying that the narrow politics of that mission means the organization should be broadened to take additional political stances that would exclude people who otherwise would participate in advancing the mission?

I don’t know how that follows.