What? It's just a wikipedia article. It really matters that much to you? And how does one "steal" stuff from a public web site anyway? Look, the point of wikipeda isn't to get your own awesome article published so people can see what a good writer you are (even if it is awesome). The point is to enable people to educate themselves, to disseminate knowledge. If people take what you've written and use it somewhere else then good, mission accomplished. I think that's really the most useful way to feel about this. Even if people do take what you've written, pass it off as their own, and sell it in books, that's not actually preventing our goal (people being able to read it) from being reached, so I wouldn't worry about it.

As for the issue of doofuses putting false stuff in articles.. well, that's a problem and I have no answer to that. I just want to talk about the issue of "ownership".

So you can vote below the line.

That's actually an option, you know.

Eww, that wasn't obligatory at all. In fact, never do it again.

The funny thing is that when I first read your post I thought you were talking about America.

It does seem almost inevitable.

What?

Of course the browser doesn't know the difference between a site that uses signed certificates that is being MITM'd and one that uses a self-signed certificate. That's why neither of these should be advertised as being "secure". Because they're not. And when you go to https://my.bank/ and notice that the lock isn't there because someone's doing a MITM with a self-signed cert you should realise "whoa, hey, this isn't a secure connection" and proceed to not give your bank details to whoever is at the other end.

On the other hand, when you go to https://porn.site/ and it uses a self-signed certificate, well no, it's not secure. Maybe someone is doing a MITM attack. But at least some random person with a passive network sniffer can't see everything you're watching, and furthermore no-one even with an active MITM attack can affect your connection once it's been established.

I find that intermediate layers such as Python tend to produce above-standard apps due to the developers (ie. me) not having to implement every little detail manually. Number of Bugs ~ k * Amount of Code, well known fact.

That's absurd. The only way to correctly use this new multitasking API is by directly coding your program in C? A native C application is just a heap of machine code. How is a program compiled in any other language any different? Or how about another language translated to C then compiled natively?

I honestly find it hard to believe that these restrictions are necessary.

We might be able to adapt. 2 C isn't much of a difference for our human bodies. But what about the rest of the animal and plant kingdoms? Shit is going to go extinct. Shit that we rely for our food supply. Pollinators for our crops. Animals and plants that provide nutrition for our crops. The food chain, essentially, will go to shit. Reduced rainfall in some areas will drastically reduce our ability to grow crops. Not to mention rising sea levels, more frequent extreme weather events, etc etc.

Yes, we (humanity) will survive. I will probably survive. But it won't be pleasant, or anywhere near as comfortable as our lives now (in a 1st world country). We don't live in a vacuum, and those things economists call 'externalities' aren't actually. I'd rather do something about the situation.