Literally everything out of that dummy's mouth is hypocritical or disingenuous.

subject to regulatory approval

reading is difficult

"Who the fuck"

I call this old ditty the "Lament of the /. old person"

Calling AI like 60s AI on steroids is like calling a rocketship just a basketball on steroids. The only possible explanation for your post is that your feelings prevent you from discussing the topic in good faith.

The obfuscation was a feature. Not a strong degree of security but not nothing. Dumping the database of urls would be insane and invite all kinds of scrutiny and abuse.

40 years? That's so cute.

(whoops, replied to the wrong post .. meant the one below)

Transactional doesn't mean anything without consistency. To my mind the worst damage this administration is doing is to themselves in the longer term. What's the point of making any concessions for a deal at all if it will just not honor it? By defanging any oversight, and make itself its own enforcer, other parties really have no foundation upon which to assume that negotiated terms mean anything at all..

Lol you can't land a job because you're a shitty person.

So do it yourself. Honestly, this kind of kneejerk response is stupid. Is Google a good company? No. Does that mean everything they do is useless/untrustworthy? Also no.

You can fetch OSS Rebuild's SLSA Provenance:

$ oss-rebuild get cratesio syn 2.0.39

or explore the rebuilt versions of a particular package:

$ oss-rebuild list pypi absl-py

or even rebuild the package for yourself:

$ oss-rebuild get npm lodash 4.17.20 --format=dockerfile | docker run $(docker buildx build -q -)

"destroyed by their reaction of hiding"

My point was exactly that while we think we have all the context we need, we sometimes don't, to potentially devastating effect. The fact that the internet brigade has a high chance of being "right" in this case doesn't invalidate the point. People can have perfectly legitimate reasons to not want the details of who they're in a relationship with broadcast at large.

All you post tells me is that people are very hungry to see people "get what they deserve" and extrapolate all sorts of things to make them feel justified about doing so.

I opened my post with "I think cheating is bad" so what do you think, dummy?

I think in broad strokes, infidelity is bad, but when it comes to a specific case, I'd say nobody is in a position to judge without much more context.

And that's what makes this kind of stuff rather shitty. People feel confident filling in all sorts of details from their own imagination and prejudices, and even if you get it mostly right 9 times out of 10 (to be very charitable, in my opinion) does that excuse the 10% of the time where the internet mob is wrong?

I don't think this administration has any appetite for doing anything remotely pro-consumer.