[At-Risk Shares] Enumeration of Reasons to Leave Github
meanwhile ... I found this on the haven issues repository, seems like it needs more value. (the evac guide at https://gitlab.com/upend/github/evac-guide is stale for 2 years). https://github.com/guardianproject/haven/issues/425 To improve the credibility of the project and attract privacy-respecting developers, please consider moving away from Github. It's particularly important to get the bug tracker off MS Github to encourage reports. Direct practical problems with using Microsoft Github A survey shows that a significant number of bug reports are withheld when the bug tracker is inside a restrictive or politically controversial walled-garden like MS Github or gitlab.com. Github is Tor-hostile according to Tor project. GH has started forcing Tor users through an extra email verification step that effectively discourages bug reports: github-tor_hostility MS failed to secure Github, which was breached to the tune of 500gb of private projects. Security incompetence is further showcased by an MS-imposed requirement to create and account and sign in to report an MS security bug. And for those not discouraged by that, the sign-in page is also broken. Then security was breached again in July 2020 when OAuth tokens were stolen from both Github and Gitlab.com. MS suppresses democracy by blocking Github access to a project that facilitates protests in Catalonia. Ethical problems with using Microsoft products and services Microsoft harms the environment by serving the two most destructive oil companies in the world: ExxonMobil and Chevron. (#ExxonKnew) Exxon notoriously knew about climate change since 1977. They not only kept it secret from the public, but they also financed a disinformation campaign. Microsoft and Chevron were caught each paying $100k to "the Cloakroom", a project to hide bribes going from large corporations to republican politicians. Chevron's right-leaning stance is further pushed through its membership with ALEC, which doubles as a superPAC and bill mill that lobbies and writes policy for U.S. republicans. Microsoft is a notorious privacy abuser: MS is a PRISM corporation prone to mass surveillance. MS supported CISPA and collaborates with the NSA. MS paid $195k to fight the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). MS drug tests its employees, thus intruding on their privacy outside the workplace. MS finances other privacy abusers: In 2012 Microsoft spent $35 million on Facebook ads and in 2015 Microsoft was the third biggest spender on Facebook ads in the world. MS proxies through Accenture to make Sweden cashless. The war on cash is war on privacy. MS supplies Bing search service which gives high rankings to privacy-abusing CloudFlare websites. MS owns and operates Outlook Email and the LinkedIn social media site, both of which are exclusive walled-gardens that limit participation to those who have a phone number and the will to share it with Microsoft. MS supplies hotmail.com email service, which uses vigilante extremist org Spamhaus to force residential internet users to share all their e-mail metadata and payloads with a corporate third-party. MS unlawfully used people's images without consent to train their facial recognition products MS distributes a nonfree operating system, Microsoft Windows, which is jam-packed with malicious functionalities, including surveillance of users, DRM, censorship and a universal back door. MS was caught surreptitiously recording Xbox users and paying contractors to listen to the recordings. Dutch government commissioned a study which found Microsoft to have several GDPR violations. E.g. Office 365 violates GDPR article 5 ¶ 1.c, GDPR article 17, and stores the data outside the EEA (may also be a GDPR breach). Microsoft is detrimental to human rights and democracy Microsoft finances AnyVision to produce facial recognition technology that the Israeli military uses as a weapon against the Palestinian people who they oppress in their occupation. Note that Israeli snipers murdered an unarmed civilian Palestinian medic (in breach of the Geneva Convention) then edited the video to deceive the public for PR damage control. Microsoft supports ICE in a variety of ways in the course of ICE's implementation of Trump's xenophobic border policies. Microsoft services an ICE contract worth $19.4 million dollars despite protest from employees. In addition to MS Office products, Microsoft has renewed a Github contract and also supplies cloud computing through its Azure platform. MS partnered with FedEx, an NRA-supporting ALEC member as well as JP Morgan Chase, the most evil bank in the world. MS conceals US military contracts to bias PR and dodge social accountablity. They have a much bigger piece these contracts than the rest of MACFANG, they lack Googles AI principles, and unlike Google they ignore employee protest and petitions. MS is among the top 15 recipients of Trump's corporate tax breaks, a benefit of $128 billion. Microsoft sacked hundreds of employees immediately after receiving the tax breaks in February 2018. MS is anti-consumer and anti-competitive MS tricked users into "upgrading" to Windows 10, which sabotages users in a variety of ways, one of which is to prevent cloud-free accounts. MS strong-armed nearly all PC manufacturers charge every buyer for an MS Windows license regardless of whether the user actually wants Windows. MS hoards software patents and uses them to fight free software. Bad alternative: gitlab.com service The Gitlab.com SaaS is often considered an alternative to MS Github, but it's even worse-- for many reasons There's nothing wrong with self-hosting an instance running Gitlab CE or using the Gitlab instance of another party. Decent alternatives self-hosting (Gogs, Gitea, Gitlab CE, etc.) (+) avoids the "shake-up" problem of shrinking the community each time the project moves (there is no risk that the privacy factors would later take a negative turn). Bitbucket (-) dodgy j/s up the yin yang that clusterfucks uMatrix (-) has some relationship with Netlify, who uses AWS (-) non-free software? Launchpad notabug.org ("NAB") (privacy policy). Based on a liberated fork of gogs. (+) supports Tor (although the onion web UI is currently disabled in response to attack, so the onion site only accepts git connections) (+) supports SSH keys and SSH over Tor (+) no CAPTCHAs (+) registration very non-intrusive, and not controlling about where you get your email (-) noteworthy drawback unrelated to privacy: e-voting non-existent. (-) noteworthy drawback unrelated to privacy: NAB doesn't associate PGP keys to users, so PGP signed commits may be unavailable or more manual work needed. (-) IRC support channel is dead. Codeberg. Runs on Gitea, which is a Gogs fork. (+) web UI works on Tor (probably SSH as well) (+) supports SSH and GPG keys (+) registration very non-intrusive, and not controlling about where you get your email (+) functions without any j/s, and the javascript that exists is all 1st-party (+) supports e-voting (-) logins don't work from all Ungoogled Chromium installations (-) no onion address yerbamate.dev git.openprivacy.ca git.nixnet.xyz git.sr.ht framagit.org: Gitlab CE instance git.jami.net: Gitlab CE instance, perhaps dedicated to jami sourcehut.org
On 10/14/20, Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Bad alternative: gitlab.com service The Gitlab.com SaaS is often considered an alternative to MS Github, but it's even worse--
for many reasons
* Sexist treatment toward saleswomen who are [told to wear](https://web.archive.org/web/20200309145121/https://www.theregister.co.uk/202...) dresses, heels, etc. * Hosted by Google. * [Proxied](https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2020/01/16/gitlab-changes-to-cloudflare/) through privacy abuser CloudFlare. * [tracking](https://social.privacytools.io/@darylsun/103015834654172174) * Hostile treatment of Tor users trying to register. * Hostile treatment of new users who attempt to register with a `@spamgourmet.com` forwarding email address to track spam and to protect their more sensitive internal email address. * Hostile treatment of Tor users *after* they've established an account and have proven to be a non-spammer. Regarding the last bullet, I was simply trying to edit an existing message that I already posted and was forced to solve a CAPTCHA (attached). There are several problems with this: CAPTCHAs break robots and robots are not necessarily malicious. E.g. I could have had a robot correcting a widespread misspelling error in all my posts. CAPTCHAs put humans to work for machines when it is machines that should work for humans. CAPTCHAs are defeated. Spammers find it economical to use third-world sweat shop labor for CAPTCHAs while legitimate users have this burden of broken CAPTCHAs. The reCAPTCHA puzzle requires a connection to Google Google's reCAPTCHAs compromise security as a consequence of surveillance capitalism that entails collection of IP address, browser print. anonymity is compromised. (speculative) could Google push malicious j/s that intercepts user registration information? Users are forced to execute non-free javascript (recaptcha/api.js). The reCAPTCHA requires a GUI, thus denying service to users of text-based clients. CAPTCHAs put humans to work for machines when it is machines who should be working for humans. PRISM corp Google Inc. benefits financially from the puzzle solving work, giving Google an opportunity to collect data, abuse it, and profit from it. E.g. Google can track which of their logged-in users are visiting the page presenting the CAPTCHA. The reCAPTCHAs are often broken. This amounts to a denial of service. gitlab_google_recaptcha E.g.1: the CAPTCHA server itself refuses to give the puzzle saying there is too much activity. E.g.2: ccha The CAPTCHAs are often unsolvable. E.g.1: the CAPTCHA puzzle is broken by ambiguity (is one pixel in a grid cell of a pole holding a street sign considered a street sign?) E.g.2: the puzzle is expressed in a language the viewer doesn't understand. (note: for a brief moment gitlab.com switched to hCAPTCHA by Intuition Machines, Inc. but now they're back to Google's reCAPTCHA) Network neutrality abuse: there is an access inequality whereby users logged into Google accounts are given more favorable treatment the CAPTCHA (but then they take on more privacy abuse). Tor users are given extra harsh treatment.
There's nothing wrong with self-hosting an instance running Gitlab CE or using the Gitlab instance of another party.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 5:58 AM <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
On 10/14/20, Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Bad alternative: gitlab.com service The Gitlab.com SaaS is often considered an alternative to MS Github, but it's even worse--
Use Phabricator, preferably self hosted.
It is genuinely open source.
so you know, phabricator rejects pull requests https://github.com/phacility/phabricator/pull/830 freebsd has a fork that appears to be accepting pull requests https://github.com/freebsd/phabricator/pull/8 it's cool that phabricator offers ancient trials in order to have your pull requests accepted. they don't link to the trials for people to try to pass them, so it makes sense that freebsd's fork has some activity.
I appreciate phabricator's dedication to conflict resolution and would like to try it out. On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 6:11 AM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 5:58 AM <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
On 10/14/20, Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Bad alternative: gitlab.com service The Gitlab.com SaaS is often considered an alternative to MS Github, but it's even worse--
Use Phabricator, preferably self hosted.
It is genuinely open source.
so you know, phabricator rejects pull requests https://github.com/phacility/phabricator/pull/830 freebsd has a fork that appears to be accepting pull requests https://github.com/freebsd/phabricator/pull/8
it's cool that phabricator offers ancient trials in order to have your pull requests accepted. they don't link to the trials for people to try to pass them, so it makes sense that freebsd's fork has some activity.
I could barely control this reply, because I saw this: ``` Write Things Down You can write things down and revert them later with Phriction, which is a document wiki. You can write text. That text stays there. You can read it later. You can make text purple. Purple text resolves conflicts! ``` and it triggered an experience I had where fbi-like influences forced me to engage the homeless communities in my area as if they were a gang war between the bloods and the cripps, the blues and the reds, and I obsessively flee color polarization. On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 6:26 AM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
I appreciate phabricator's dedication to conflict resolution and would like to try it out.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 6:11 AM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 5:58 AM <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
On 10/14/20, Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Bad alternative: gitlab.com service The Gitlab.com SaaS is often considered an alternative to MS Github, but it's even worse--
Use Phabricator, preferably self hosted.
It is genuinely open source.
so you know, phabricator rejects pull requests https://github.com/phacility/phabricator/pull/830 freebsd has a fork that appears to be accepting pull requests https://github.com/freebsd/phabricator/pull/8
it's cool that phabricator offers ancient trials in order to have your pull requests accepted. they don't link to the trials for people to try to pass them, so it makes sense that freebsd's fork has some activity.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 5:58 AM <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
Use Phabricator, preferably self hosted.
It is genuinely open source.
On 2020-10-14 20:11, Karl wrote:
so you know, phabricator rejects pull requests
No it does not. It rejects pull requests submitted through GitHub - as it should. Pull requests for Phabricator should be submitted through Phabricator itself. There is a saying in software development: "Eat your own dogfood". Or, as the Phabricator developers less laconically say: "If you're comfortable enough with Phabricator to contribute to it, you should also be comfortable using it to submit changes." To which I would add that GitHub is evil, in that its administration is heavily infiltrated by evil people, and should be bypassed, lest you get burned. It is full of people who hate you, because they hate everyone, including themselves, and will take any opportunity to harm you.
On 10/14/20, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
evil as fuck. But those are your technofascist heroes James. You should make
I'm hoping to phase off my comments soon, but punk I note you saying "technofascist" here sometimes, on a list where technology is discussed a lot. As an anarchoprimitivist, I "secretly" hate technology (but as a software developer use it for most of my tasks), and I hang out sometimes with people who see anybody who develops or develops with technology as a harmful authority. But I don't really expect to hear that opinion here. Is this a view you hold? Are you aware of there being others here who hold that view?
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 17:35:20 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/14/20, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
evil as fuck. But those are your technofascist heroes James. You should make
I'm hoping to phase off my comments soon,
for what it's worth I enjoy reading your posts (or most of them at least =P)
but punk I note you saying "technofascist" here sometimes, on a list where technology is discussed a lot.
yes, and given the totalitarian system we live in and how 'technology' is an important part of it, technofascism looks kinda 'on topic' for the list.
As an anarchoprimitivist, I "secretly" hate technology (but as a software developer use it for most of my tasks), and I hang out sometimes with people who see anybody who develops or develops with technology as a harmful authority. But I don't really expect to hear that opinion here.
Is this a view you hold? Are you aware of there being others here who hold that view?
I'm not against technical developments per se. I'm certainly against the 'progressives' who only care about the latest stupid gadget and think that 'better technology' is better for people...while hiding/lying about all the negative aspects of technical development. As to what other members of the list think, I believe most of them are on the 'progressive' technology-fanbois category. They can speak for themselves though.
On 2020-10-15 07:35, Karl wrote:
On 10/14/20, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote: Is this a view you [Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0] hold? Are you aware of there being others here who hold that view?
Nothing BatSoup says can be taken at face value. He is a shill. He works in an office full of shills, and says what his script tells him to say. His script was composed by people who don't want their enemies to cooperate with each other, so send in people saying "Hail fellow X", who then proceed to sow hatred and distrust between slightly different brands of X. Thus Trotsky tells the peasant with one cow his enemy is the peasant with two cows, and his friend is a failed Jewish money lender from the big city who went into politics after pissing away his business capital.
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 15:20:30 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
He works in an office full of shills, and says what his script tells him to say.
I'm literally laughing...
sow hatred and distrust between slightly different brands of X.
you mean, 'sow' 'hatred' between the different trumpofascists of this list? Come on James. You know what you are. As a 1000% typical piece of US shit posing as 'libertarian' you know that everything you say is a lie.
Thus Trotsky tells the peasant with one cow his enemy is the peasant with two cows, and his friend is a failed Jewish money lender from the big city who went into politics after pissing away his business capital.
you are the troskyte and jew cocksucker, not me.
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 15:20:30 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
He works in an office full of shills, and says what his script tells him to say.
On 2020-10-15 16:59, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
I'm literally laughing...
Here is a simple shill test. If you are not a shill, should be easy to pass it. There are certain things that shills are not only forbidden to say, but forbidden to acknowledge anyone else saying. Here is a multiple choice test. Your inability to acknowledge the existence of the red pill answer, A, will reveal that your shilling work is supervised, and subject to fixed bureaucratic rules Some of these tests work only on Soros shills, some work only on Democratic party shills, and some work only on FBI shills, but this test works on all shills so far. They cannot give an answer that would implicitly acknowledge the existence of the red pill answers: Prove your not a shill by answering this multiple choice RedPill on women question. Just copy and paste the entire answer in your reply. If you disagree with the RedPill answer, answer A, *copy* *paste* *that *answer* and fisk it. Should we make pornography illegal? [A] No, because male desire for sexual gratification is not causing society any problems. Now, we should ban gay, tranny, and cuck porn. And we should ban romance novels, i.e. porn for women. But heterosexual porn, especially if it depicts violent rape, will be allowed, and documentation of little prepubescent girls fucking their dogs will be required material for anyone who wants to be a member of the priesthood, not because it is nice to watch, but because it is incredibly red pilling. [B] No, because pornography allows us to learn about various fetishes and alternative sexual practices, and that is valuable knowledge. [C] Yes, because pornography is how the (((Synagogue of Satan))) destroyed our TFR. Before the advent of pornography, there were fecund marriages and stable families, but then we let in these Semitic parasites, and they singlehandedly turned all our women to porn sluts and all our men to incels. Were it not for Jewish pornographers, we would all have big families, just like we had in Hitler’s Germany. Similarly to Brave New World, the Jews are using our own desires to control us – so it’s more like a Brave JEW World, am I right? [D] No, but Child Porn should still be illegal, because whenever you look at an image of a child being abused, you are both encouraging the production of more CP, and repeating the original abuse. [E] No, but we should require all porn actors to wear condoms, in order to protect the actors and actresses from venereal diseases, and to teach the viewers — who are often our own sons — to use contraceptives. Porn is spiritual poison, but it’s not realistic to ban all of it, so we should focus instead on protecting the sex workers — who are often our own daughters in college — from exploitation and bad working conditions. There are no end of positions that shills are forbidden to acknowledge anyone else thinking or speaking - but this depends on which shilling organization they belong to. This one seems to work on shills of all organizations.
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 18:35:38 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
Here is a simple shill test. If you are not a shill, should be easy to pass it.
You already subjected me to one such test. You should check the archives...
Your inability to acknowledge the existence of the red pill answer, A, will reveal that your shilling work is supervised,
Looks like you haven't been paying attention? My 'hatred' of feminazism, usually misspelled as 'feminism' is way way bigger than your love for trump. Feminazis are a form of 'recycled' anti-sex puritan nutcase, which is why feminazis are so popular in 'the christian west', especially in the US.
They cannot give an answer that would implicitly acknowledge the existence of the red pill answers:
you think my statement above isn't 'red pill' enough?
If you disagree with the RedPill answer, answer A, *copy* *paste* *that *answer* and fisk it.
porn should be completely 'unregulated', 'age of consent' 'laws' are fascist nonsense, and sex with animals is a pretty good topic for porn. As to your 'red pill' answer...
we should ban gay, tranny, and cuck porn.
When you say "ban gay porn", you're saying you want to ban, among other things, lesbian porn, including lesbian rape porn. It of course turns out that lesbian porn is a pretty good genre appreciated by males. In other words, you sound like you are a kind of gay male yourself... now, to state the obvious, the libertarian position is free speech, so banning anything is outright nonsense. If you don't like gay porn, dog porn, or whatever, don't watch it. I do agree that 'romance novels' are garbage, but still not to be 'banned'. your [b] reply is legitimate too, but just one more reason that doesn't exclude others.
we should ban romance novels, i.e. porn for women. But heterosexual porn, especially if it depicts violent rape, will be allowed, and documentation of little prepubescent girls fucking their dogs will be required material for anyone who wants to be a member of the priesthood, not because it is nice to watch, but because it is incredibly red pilling. [B] No, because pornography allows us to learn about various fetishes and alternative sexual practices, and that is valuable knowledge.
and by the way, what am I shilling, exactly?
I would guess you are an NSA shill who is here to disrupt the development of non NSA approved cryptography
So that's why I, unlike you, have been endlessly ranting against tor for years? Yeah, your guess is just absurd. And don't you use nsa approved cryptography like rijndael anyway? I'm certainly here to disrupt the development of the pentagon-NSA's tor, a piece of malware in which 'cypherpunks' like, say, ian goldberg have played a not small part. Maybe you should take a more careful look at the possible candidates for NSA shills... I have noted as well that most of your US 'cypherpunk' 'activists' and 'coders', like say the asshole responsible for 'signal' works for facebook and got 10s of millions in bribes from the pentagon through the 'open technology fund'. So who are the NSA shills again?
The test I just gave you works on FBI, Soros, and Harvard shills. I have not tried it on an NSA shill yet, but I figure if other people who shill for the government fail it, you will not be able to pass it either.
I kinda expected you to say I was a north korea, or cuba, or iran, or 'ISIS' etc, shill, given my 'rabid anti-americanism', but maybe you knew better than that? =)
On 2020-10-16 05:40, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 18:35:38 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
Here is a simple shill test. If you are not a shill, should be easy to pass it.
You already subjected me to one such test. You should check the archives...
You did not pass the shill test, but when I fisk your answer, the list server rejects the reply as spam.
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 08:25:31 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 2020-10-16 05:40, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 18:35:38 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
Here is a simple shill test. If you are not a shill, should be easy to pass it.
You already subjected me to one such test. You should check the archives...
You did not pass the shill test,
LMAO!
but when I fisk your answer, the list server rejects the reply as spam.
I don't know. There are 3 replies from you in the archive https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2020-October/082973.html https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2020-October/082972.html https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2020-October/082974.html
And the libertarian position on freedom of association?
'freedom of association' is a code word used by white-supremacist-trash. But since you're not replying to anything I said because of 'spam' (LMAO!!!) I won't bother elaborating further. Thing is, according to the 'shill test', I'm anything but a shill. You, an official trumpobot on the other hand...
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 08:33:53PM -0300, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 08:25:31 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 2020-10-16 05:40, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 18:35:38 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
Here is a simple shill test. If you are not a shill, should be easy to pass it.
You already subjected me to one such test. You should check the archives...
You did not pass the shill test,
LMAO!
FWIW, I agree with you (Juan) that you are not a shill. Your style of response sometimes gets in the way of others hearing your actual arguments sometimes though... and sometimes it therefore unfortunately becomes too easy for others to really get you wrong. That said, especially in the last year or so, your communication clarity appears to have really picked up, so "doing well" on that front.
but when I fisk your answer, the list server rejects the reply as spam.
I don't know. There are 3 replies from you in the archive
https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2020-October/082973.html https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2020-October/082972.html https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2020-October/082974.html
And the libertarian position on freedom of association?
'freedom of association' is a code word used by white-supremacist-trash.
Juan, this position you take needs to be unpacked - I (and presumably others) are having a hard time understanding what you could be saying that we could agree with. You see, "white supremacist" has been created by APAC/SPLC etc as an ad hominem, and so unfortunately has therefore lost most of its utility --except-- as an ad hominem attack, so when you use that term, folks don't hear what your real position is, they just hear your use of an ad hom. "Freedom of association" as a principle is absolutely fundamental - a basic human right. In South Australia (next to Victoria), they tried to use "bikie crime" to legislate against the freedom of association, which became so farcical that a bikie defendant was in court, to give his defence, because he was ordered by the court with a Summons to appear, and he was marched out of the court by the police before he could give his defence due to violation of the recently passed "anti bikie, actually anti freedom of association" statute law! This was funny, but an incredibly bad attack on one of our fundamental freedoms. Fortunately we had a contact with that bikie gang, spoke with a higher up, got them to write down the basic Australian Constitution-al defence, and in their appeal to the High Court of Australia they won. Just imagine what it would be like being classified a dissident ("domestic terrorist" in today's Orwellian language) and not being able to associate with anyone you know, only being allowed to go to the shops for food?
But since you're not replying to anything I said because of 'spam' (LMAO!!!) I won't bother elaborating further.
Thing is, according to the 'shill test', I'm anything but a shill. You, an official trumpobot on the other hand...
Come on Juan, Marxos takes a lot of positions and brings a lot of nuance. Surely you can find something he says that you can agree with? At least a little bit of agreement on any topic, may be a possible ground for useful discussion rather than ad homs and blanket negates...
On 10/15/20, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 08:33:53PM -0300, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 08:25:31 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 2020-10-16 05:40, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 18:35:38 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
Here is a simple shill test. If you are not a shill, should be easy to pass it.
You already subjected me to one such test. You should check the archives...
You did not pass the shill test,
LMAO!
FWIW, I agree with you (Juan) that you are not a shill.
Your style of response sometimes gets in the way of others hearing your actual arguments sometimes though... and sometimes it therefore unfortunately becomes too easy for others to really get you wrong. That said, especially in the last year or so, your communication clarity appears to have really picked up, so "doing well" on that front.
but when I fisk your answer, the list server rejects the reply as spam.
I don't know. There are 3 replies from you in the archive
https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2020-October/082973.html https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2020-October/082972.html https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2020-October/082974.html
And the libertarian position on freedom of association?
'freedom of association' is a code word used by white-supremacist-trash.
Juan, this position you take needs to be unpacked - I (and presumably others) are having a hard time understanding what you could be saying that we could agree with. You see, "white supremacist" has been created by APAC/SPLC etc as an ad hominem, and so unfortunately has therefore lost most of its utility --except-- as an ad hominem attack, so when you use that term, folks don't hear what your real position is, they just hear your use of an ad hom.
This is incredibly hard to fight on the other side. People associate the phrase "white supremacist" with their personal pain, and learn to dislike it when young. This helps keep us safe by disinspiring trust of people who might severely harm us. I break the norm by struggling to reject critical labels, and have suffered significantly for it by trusting those who simply didn't value my wellbeing, long ago.
"Freedom of association" as a principle is absolutely fundamental - a basic human right. In South Australia (next to Victoria), they tried to use "bikie crime" to legislate against the freedom of association, which became so farcical that a bikie defendant was in court, to give his defence, because he was ordered by the court with a Summons to appear, and he was marched out of the court by the police before he could give his defence due to violation of the recently passed "anti bikie, actually anti freedom of association" statute law!
This was funny, but an incredibly bad attack on one of our fundamental freedoms.
Fortunately we had a contact with that bikie gang, spoke with a higher up, got them to write down the basic Australian Constitution-al defence, and in their appeal to the High Court of Australia they won.
I looked up this phrase. James' interpretation appears to be the libertarian one: that business owners can freely exclude employees. Zenaan is ignoring this unpopular portion of the interpretation. The civil war and civil rights movements in the USA are responsible for this polarization over here. I don't know if anybody knows why the north attacked the south when they seceded. I agree with the anarchist meaning of "freedom of association", which is totally different and likely hated by libertarians.
Just imagine what it would be like being classified a dissident ("domestic terrorist" in today's Orwellian language) and not being able to associate with anyone you know, only being allowed to go to the shops for food?
Thanks, Zenaan. I wonder who in this conversation needs any imagination for that.
But since you're not replying to anything I said because of 'spam' (LMAO!!!) I won't bother elaborating further.
Thing is, according to the 'shill test', I'm anything but a shill. You, an official trumpobot on the other hand...
Come on Juan, Marxos takes a lot of positions and brings a lot of nuance. Surely you can find something he says that you can agree with?
At least a little bit of agreement on any topic, may be a possible ground for useful discussion rather than ad homs and blanket negates...
On 2020-10-16 10:32, Karl wrote:
James' interpretation appears to be the libertarian one: that business owners can freely exclude employees> Zenaan is ignoring this unpopular portion of the interpretation.
I read Zeenan as accepting it as popular, and indeed uncontroversial, except amongst those who want to destroy western civilization and eradicate whiteness, which will inevitably turn into eradicating whites, as the liquidation of the kulaks as a class turned into the liquidation of the kulaks.
On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 12:14:07PM +1000, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 2020-10-16 10:32, Karl wrote:
James' interpretation appears to be the libertarian one: that business owners can freely exclude employees> Zenaan is ignoring this unpopular portion of the interpretation.
I read Zeenan as accepting it as popular, and indeed uncontroversial, except amongst those who want to destroy western civilization and eradicate whiteness, which will inevitably turn into eradicating whites, as the liquidation of the kulaks as a class turned into the liquidation of the kulaks.
I thought it was uncontroversial that "the libertarian position" would allow such free choices by businesses. And that such "a properly free" market for shops/businesses, would simply sort itself out eventually - whether it be exclusionary, inclusionary, or some combination. One of the apparent problems for libertarianism is that holding such a position (even to allow such discussion) is highly politically incorrect in the present day and age (usually instantly getting labelled "Nazi"), and can result in loss of employment, family etc, for nothing other than wanting to discuss (and nominally hold) such a position. This is a great shame upon the USA today, and an indictment of the USA "education" system. One of the few "almost mainstream" US authors today who not only gets it, but dives headlong into the facts, historical references, and analysis of such questions, is Ron Unz. Not only does he do a credible deconstruction of such questions, he nails the analysis of those topics he studies. There is much more to properly study however...
On 2020-10-16 09:33, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 08:25:31 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 2020-10-16 05:40, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 18:35:38 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
Here is a simple shill test. If you are not a shill, should be easy to pass it.
You already subjected me to one such test. You should check the archives...
You did not pass the shill test,
LMAO!
The test was not the answer to the question, but ability to acknowledge the question - that the frame was that male sexuality is not a problem, female sexuality is causing problems. Your reply was totally fine, absolutely nothing wrong with it - if people's concerns about sexual activity are totally gender neutral, which of course they are not. You imposed a gender neutral frame on a strongly gendered question, reinterpreting it as gender neutral. Which is a shill detector, because shills are not only unable to acknowledge that women and sodomites are causing problems, but unable to acknowledge that anyone else thinks that they are causing problems. Now that you have failed one shill test, let us try another, this one NSA shill specific. What was the key and critical document that Snowden discovered, and why was it key and critical, the document whose contents no mainstream source will mention, the document he was not supposed to have access to. If you are so outraged by the power of the state and the way it is spying on us, you should have the core fact of Snowden's indictment at your fingertips. Joe random cypherpunk would not necessarily know the story of this document, but Mister Maximum Outrage should surely know. Unless, of course, his boss forbids him to know it, and forbids him to acknowledge anyone else knowing it. An FBI shill or a Soros shill could probably answer this question, but an NSA shill could not.
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 11:10:42 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
Your reply was totally fine, absolutely nothing wrong with it - if people's concerns about sexual activity are totally gender neutral, which of course they are not. You imposed a gender neutral frame on a strongly gendered question, reinterpreting it as gender neutral.
I am again literally laughing. 'Gender neutral'? What the hell are you talking about? Oh, WAIT. You're just using FEMINAZI JARGON. I think I can pretty much rest my case now as to who is the shill. And let me underscore again that the principle of free speech allows people to create/publish whatever kind of porn they want and it has fuck to do with 'gender neutrality'. GENDER?? Do you mean SEX???
Which is a shill detector, because shills are not only unable to acknowledge that women and sodomites are causing problems, but unable to acknowledge that anyone else thinks that they are causing problems.
Now that you have failed one shill test,
hilarious, and thus I'm literally laughing yet again
let us try another, this one NSA shill specific.
What was the key and critical document that Snowden discovered, and why was it key and critical, the document whose contents no mainstream source will mention, the document he was not supposed to have access to.
There is no such critical document. Snowden IS a US govt shill. None of his 'revelations' were 'revelations' at all. Just two samples of outrageous stuff that was well known 'before snowden' : how ATT is part of the NSA network. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A how your cuntry is ruled by the geheimnis stats polizei https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-launderi...
If you are so outraged by the power of the state and the way it is spying on us, you should have the core fact of Snowden's indictment at your fingertips.
well, I don't. Why would I bother reading the 'indictment' coming from a bunch of illiterate nazis.
Joe random cypherpunk would not necessarily know the story of this document, but Mister Maximum Outrage should surely know.
I guess I'm joe cypherpunk then. So what 'document' are you talking about? Wait for it, is it something about how evil blacks are, or? At any rate, link it for other joe random cypherpunks like me to get educated.
Unless, of course, his boss forbids him to know it, and forbids him to acknowledge anyone else knowing it. An FBI shill or a Soros shill could probably answer this question, but an NSA shill could not.
I don't know what 'document' you have in mind but I will know as soon as you link it. What then? Will I be instantly fired?
On 2020-10-16 05:40, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 18:35:38 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
Here is a simple shill test. If you are not a shill, should be easy to pass it.
You already subjected me to one such test. You should check the archives...
Trying different fragments of my fisking of your reply to see why the filter is misidentifying my reply as spam: And the libertarian position on freedom of association? When people cooperate to create value, when they form a business, hire employees, or even have a regular and repeat contracting and contract relationship, it is obviously easier to cooperate if you are of the same sex, race, religion, culture, and approximately similar IQ. So white males should hire people of their own sex, race and religion, particularly for positions requiring trust, right?
freedom of association?
Similar inquiry may be to look at planet from above, observe any propensity that variations within humanity may tend to associate more often with themselves, or not. Consider removal of all government, all borders, maps, place names... what then of any propensities. Would humans species not be expected similar to any observable associative tendencies of variations within species of animal kingdom... ant colonies, birds, dogs, bacteria, fish, worms... or not. If no associative bias is found, great. If something is found, then admit it, and that it is unchangeable embraceable part of nature for which legislating false morals or imparting external / unnatural forces, can prove dangerous due to other things found inherent to nature, such as when cornering an animal.
easier to cooperate if you are of the same
Then in either case world can return from the endless subject bullshit back to whatever cooperation among free animals running about.
On 10/15/20, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
freedom of association?
Similar inquiry may be to look at planet from above, observe any propensity that variations within humanity may tend to associate more often with themselves, or not. Consider removal of all government, all borders, maps, place names... what then of any propensities. Would humans species not be expected similar to any observable associative tendencies of variations within species of animal kingdom... ant colonies, birds, dogs, bacteria, fish, worms... or not.
If no associative bias is found, great. If something is found, then admit it, and that it is unchangeable
each association has contexts and reasons, which themselves have contexts and reasons.
embraceable part of nature for which legislating false morals or imparting external / unnatural forces, can prove dangerous due to other things found inherent to nature, such as when cornering an animal.
easier to cooperate if you are of the same
Then in either case world can return from the endless subject bullshit back to whatever cooperation among free animals running about.
On 2020-10-16 11:33, Karl wrote:
each association has contexts and reasons, which themselves have contexts and reasons.
Observe what happens in the school cafeteria. There is black table and a white table. Why don't we just put signs on the tables?
On 2020-10-16 05:40, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 18:35:38 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
Here is a simple shill test. If you are not a shill, should be easy to pass it.
You already subjected me to one such test. You should check the archives... And the libertarian position on freedom of association?
My fisking of your reply gets misclassified as spam, so posting it in in fragments. When people cooperate to create value, when they form a business, hire employees, or even have a regular and repeat contracting and contract relationship, it is obviously easier to cooperate if you are of the same sex, race, religion, culture, and approximately similar IQ. So white males should hire people of their own sex, race and religion, particularly for positions requiring trust, right? When you hire someone for a position requiring trust, Christians tend to be more trustworthy, whites tend to be more trustworthy, and males tend to be more trustworthy. So even if you are not white, male, and Christian, it makes sense to hire white Christian males, and if you are a white Christian male, definitely makes sense. Agree? You might disagree with the proposition that Christians tend to be more trustworthy, but you cannot plausibly disagree with the proposition that whites and males tend to be more trustworthy, nor can you plausibly disagree with the proposition that coreligionists tend to be more trustworthy with people of their own religion. Well, do you disagree? You claim to be more libertarian than thou. If you were claiming to be more Christian than thou, I would be hitting you with stuff on the Trinity that demon worshipers find uncomfortable to speak. Since you claim to be more libertarian than thou, I am hitting you with libertarian positions that government shills find uncomfortable to even acknowledge. If you were telling me that you are more Christian than I am, and I should come to Jesus, I would be asking you questions about the trinity to test for demon worship. Since you claim to be more Libertarian than I am, and I should come to libertarianism, I am asking you about issues of female nature and freedom of association. If women are different from men, different rules must apply, rendering libertarianism incompatible with progressivism. Are they different? Should different rules apply? What proportion of female complaints about rape and sexual harassment are not complaints about rape and sexual harassment, but are complaints about failed shit tests? Should employers, landlords, the country club, and people who operate a pub have freedom of association? You will notice that men cannot be themselves when women are around. Should a pub be able to maintain a female free zone. Should a restaurant be able to bar unaccompanied women?
On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 08:39:38AM +1000, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
When people cooperate to create value, when they form a business, hire employees, or even have a regular and repeat contracting and contract relationship, it is obviously easier to cooperate if you are of the same sex, race, religion, culture, and approximately similar IQ.
So white males should hire people of their own sex, race and religion, particularly for positions requiring trust, right?
When you hire someone for a position requiring trust, Christians tend to be more trustworthy, whites tend to be more trustworthy, and males tend to be more trustworthy. So even if you are not white, male, and Christian, it makes sense to hire white Christian males, and if you are a white Christian male, definitely makes sense.
Agree?
This is possibly context dependent, but is very much true for example in Syria (and presumably other parts of the M.E. where Christians have not been slaughtered to extinction) where in the Syrian government under Bashar al Assad who is Alawi and who presides over majority Shia and Sunni Muslims, Christians are consistently nominated and elected to certain positions of power and authority, due to being trustworthy. Note that in Syria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria about 87% are Islamic (Shia, Sunni and a vew minorities such as Alawi), 10% are Christian and 3% are Druze - so the Christians are a minority, just as the Alawites are, but they all want Christians in important positions, because the Christians (at least relative to the others) are known to be more trustworthy, and trusted by all other sub-groups, and by keeping them in such positions they know that the country is kept much more stable than it would be otherwise ("Greater Israel" war projects notwithstanding...).
You might disagree with the proposition that Christians tend to be more trustworthy, but you cannot plausibly disagree with the proposition that whites and males tend to be more trustworthy, nor can you plausibly disagree with the proposition that coreligionists tend to be more trustworthy with people of their own religion.
Well, do you disagree?
Absent "facts" (by modern/scientific/statistical methods) some folks will of course 'disagree'. Prior to making discovery of "the facts by rigorous statistical methods" we might as individuals take positions on grounds other than "the facts disclosed by rigorous statistical methods", such as intuition, emotion, assumption, etc. and it may be anecdotally interesting to discover the degree one's personal position does or does not align with "the facts disclosed by rigorous statistical methods" - which could provide hints as to one's biases, programming from external e.g. MSM sources, etc. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=statistics+on+trustworthiness+of+ethnic+groups
You claim to be more libertarian than thou. If you were claiming to be more Christian than thou, I would be hitting you with stuff on the Trinity that demon worshipers find uncomfortable to speak. Since you claim to be more libertarian than thou, I am hitting you with libertarian positions that government shills find uncomfortable to even acknowledge.
Your approach is rigorous. Except that we make discovery (of those we might work with, trust, etc) then we fail in our duty of care to one another, but more importantly to ourselves. Effectively assisting one another to make such self discovery seems constructively useful generally.
If you were telling me that you are more Christian than I am, and I should come to Jesus, I would be asking you questions about the trinity to test for demon worship. Since you claim to be more Libertarian than I am, and I should come to libertarianism, I am asking you about issues of female nature and freedom of association.
If women are different from men, different rules must apply, rendering libertarianism incompatible with progressivism. Are they different? Should different rules apply? What proportion of female complaints about rape and sexual harassment are not complaints about rape and sexual harassment, but are complaints about failed shit tests?
Should employers, landlords, the country club, and people who operate a pub have freedom of association?
You will notice that men cannot be themselves when women are around. Should a pub be able to maintain a female free zone. Should a restaurant be able to bar unaccompanied women?
Why yes, of course, yes they should indeed :D How can anything else be "libertarian". Those who proclaim to be libertarian appear at this point in history to be violently intolerant of any position, idiology, belief, word or thought other than those they and their mob say are acceptable. It is arguably a blessing to live in this historical moment where such terrorism against freedom is on show in such stark relief.
On 2020-10-15 17:36, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
and by the way, what am I shilling, exactly?
I would guess you are an NSA shill who is here to disrupt the development of non NSA approved cryptography by sowing distrust of anything or anyone that gives the NSA a hard time and sowing conflict among people trying to protect privacy - same principle as Trotsky telling the peasants to hate each other rather than political activists from the big city, and all those Soros activists pretending to be alt right and telling rightists that Trump is a tool of the Jews. But I generally don't see NSA shills. I mostly see FBI and Soros shills - but other people who work in cryptography tell me they see no end of NSA shills. The test I just gave you works on FBI, Soros, and Harvard shills. I have not tried it on an NSA shill yet, but I figure if other people who shill for the government fail it, you will not be able to pass it either.
james, We need actual solutions, not solutions that say they are good in a really convincing way. On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 5:58 AM <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
On 10/14/20, Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Bad alternative: gitlab.com service The Gitlab.com SaaS is often considered an alternative to MS Github, but it's even worse--
Use Phabricator, preferably self hosted.
It is genuinely open source.
On 2020-10-14 20:32, Karl wrote:
james, We need actual solutions, not solutions that say they are good in a really convincing way.
Blender is a huge open source success, breaking into the big time, being free and open tool for threedee drawing. It’s development platform is of course self hosted, but not on Gitlab, on Phabricator. Maybe they know what they are doing. Git is a bit short in collaboration tools. There are three collaboration systems that fill in the gaps: GitHub, GitLab, and Phabricator. Take your pick. GitHub is perhaps the best technically, and has low barriers of entry for casual use, but has become infested with evil, dangerous, harmful, and hostile people. Gitlab has the problems you list, to which I would add that it uses Mattermost, and Mattermost has, like GitHub, become infested with evil, dangerous, harmful, and hostile people, resulting in Mattermost forks as they drive out communities for this reason, that reason, and the other reason. If you are an open source fan, and if your project is at risk of running into politics, it is Phabricator.
james, On 10/14/20, jamesd@echeque.com <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
On 2020-10-14 20:32, Karl wrote:
james, We need actual solutions, not solutions that say they are good in a really convincing way.
...
GitLab, and Phabricator.
I went a little crazy there, but phabricator seems ok I suppose. It's written in php. google of course lists the github repo first, and there are no instructions on how to contribute at the github repo: it just says "secret ancient trials". I did find the main repo, and I asked them about the rare features I value at their forum. They didn't have them. This saved me a lot of scouring through the php source. I was looking into https://codeberg.org/, which was rated well on my first post that railed against github. I don't expect that it has these features either, though. We probably need to fork a project ourselves to add decentralization to project management. The thread I asked at was https://discourse.phabricator-community.org/t/question-on-issue-and-wiki-acc... . Here's a copy of the content: gmkarl Hi, I was curious about phabricator, is there a way to access the issue or wiki data via code checkout? Or is it held in a separate database with only UI access? avivey Separate database. There’s API access (“Conduit”) for most of the tasks and Wiki data. gmkarl Thanks so much. Is there any way to run a mirror of an entire phabricator host? or of individual projects on another host, including issues? avivey You can probably clone the database, and run the mirror in read-only mode. Why would you want to do that? gmkarl I’m thinking of how relevant phabricator is for decentralized community work, where the person running the server may not keep running it forever, and people will want to be able to migrate on. Similar to the model of git itself. I guess you’d need to provide access to the database to clone it. avivey Phabricator is not built for this kind of workflow; it’s much more oriented towards centralized workflows, with a single source-of-truth. gmkarl Thank you. Only a few options are, really.
On 2020-10-15 07:30, Karl wrote:
https://discourse.phabricator-community.org/t/question-on-issue-and-wiki-acc...
gmkarl
I’m thinking of how relevant phabricator is for decentralized community work, where the person running the server may not keep running it forever, and people will want to be able to migrate on. Similar to the model of git itself.
avivey
Phabricator is not built for this kind of workflow; it’s much more oriented towards centralized workflows, with a single source-of-truth.
A single source of truth is convenient, user friendly, and efficient. Trouble is it becomes entrenched, and thus becomes a high value target, what economists call an attractive nuisance. Evil people infiltrate, enter, take it over, and make it a source of lies instead of truth. Hence the purging of Linus and Stallman. And hence when I add a valid desktop file to ~/.config/autostart in Debian running Gnome3, it dies. The best solutions combine both, with an automatic failover mechanism should the single source crash or go off the internet, or if any subgroup of peers stop accepting its truth. What should happen if it goes down is that few people notice, they just wind up, after a slight delay, connecting to the peer that was next in line to become the single source of truth if the one first in line went down. Maybe the most recent updates get lost and have to be resubmitted. Git was designed on the no single source of truth model, and a lot of its user hostility in collaboration is a result of this architecture, so anyone trying to facilitate collaboration using git is apt to drift away from this model to the locked in, locked down, single source of truth. Decentralized collaboration is *hard*. Tools to make it easy are hard.
All these solutions are built around git. Git is fully decentralized. So just share a git repository using git-daemon, gitosis, or a guest account with git-shell instead of the normal shell, and call it a day.
On 2020-10-15 16:16, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
All these solutions are built around git.
Git is fully decentralized.
So just share a git repository using git-daemon, gitosis, or a guest account with git-shell instead of the normal shell, and call it a day.
I neglected to list the best option of them all: [gitolite](https://gitolite.com/gitolite/) Gitolite allows you to easily make your repository anonymous world readable, and easily add people identified by their ssh public key and the filename of the file containing their public key write capability to certain branches and not others. So, you give everyone working on the project their set of branches on your repository, and they can do the same on their repositories.
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 08:12:56PM +1000, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 2020-10-15 16:16, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
All these solutions are built around git.
Git is fully decentralized.
So just share a git repository using git-daemon, gitosis, or a guest account with git-shell instead of the normal shell, and call it a day.
I neglected to list the best option of them all: [gitolite](https://gitolite.com/gitolite/)
Gitolite allows you to easily make your repository anonymous world readable, and easily add people identified by their ssh public key and the filename of the file containing their public key write capability to certain branches and not others.
So, you give everyone working on the project their set of branches on your repository, and they can do the same on their repositories.
And it's a Debian package ftw - gitolite3 And, most absoultely fundamentally, it's NOT written in PHP (seems it could be Perl) :)
On 10/14/20, Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
yerbamate.dev git.openprivacy.ca git.nixnet.xyz git.sr.ht framagit.org: Gitlab CE instance git.jami.net: Gitlab CE instance, perhaps dedicated to jami sourcehut.org
http://dweb.happybeing.com/blog/post/002-safegit-decentralised-git-on-safe-n... I'd also add: https://github.com/quorumcontrol/dgit https://scuttlebot.io/apis/community/git-ssb.html
participants (5)
-
grarpamp -
jamesd＠echeque.com -
Karl -
Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 -
Zenaan Harkness