Because he literally broke into a server room and installed hardware to harvest this data.
There’s no world where any organization, for profit or otherwise, would tolerate that. Even your local library would call the damn cops if you tried that.
Can we be honest about this, please?
Aaron Swartz went into a secure networking closet and left a computer there to covertly pull data from the server over many days without permission from anyone, which is absolutely not the same thing as scraping public data from the internet.
He was a hero that didn’t deserve what happened, but it’s patently dishonest to ignore that he was effectively breaking and entering, plus installing a data harvesting device in the server room, which any organization in the world would rightfully identity as hostile behavior. Even your local library would call the cops if you tried to do that.
Moreover, they’re going to want an emulator that can be managed alongside the rest of the museum software.
That’s like saying what’s the point of the air and space museum if they’re not actually flying the planes.
They’re not going to use the original hardware and put wear on them. That’s a standard part of archiving.
Just for the record, this is exactly what any museum would do, because they’re not going to actually run anything on the original hardware. Those systems are part of the collection, and it behooves a museum to not put any wear on them.
Also because emulators can be managed remotely.
Yeah, I was gonna say, holding Chrome OS above Windows because its Linux based is bizarre. That’s getting more true about Android, too. For all its faults, I can still say I’m the admin of my Windows OS (for now), and not Google.
That’s generally what you hear from people who have basic use cases and simply can’t fathom other people may want or need different things from their devices.
Which is fine, they don’t have to understand. If stock is good enough for them nowadays, more power to them.
What I’m sick of is the condescension. This bizarre thing where they somehow think a person wanting control over a device they paid for is worthy of derision or shame.
It’s like if someone who only checks their email on their laptop laughing at someone using a desktop for heavier work, for no real reason other than thinking using technology differently than themselves is silly.
That other comment is a perfect example, and indictive of this weird subculture in Android spaces that hates Google but seems to be drinking from the same user-hostile Kool aid.
Personally, I’m an odd case, in that I didn’t used to root or use custom ROMs at all until recent years. Basically since Android 10, simply to get around the needless roadblocks and restore the functions I want. I was fine with stock for a long time, until Google started becoming Apple.
Shit like this is why I can’t abide GrapheneOS or their cheerleaders.
It’s legitimately the same attitude as Google itself. This parental, condescending tone, acting as if wanting freedom to control their own devices is somehow irrational. Continuing to push this toxic idea that handcuffs are the only way to protect users. Like a sysadmin at a workplace, but without the justifiable reasons.
I’d 100% donate to them if they accepted donations.
If they accepted donations, you wouldn’t want to.
The reason uBlock Origins surpasses all the others is because of who the lead dev is, what they believe, and why they do it. They are absolute hardline and believe in what they made. It’s not a job.
You don’t need to be that kind of person to be a good developer, but when it comes to something like an adblocker and privacy protection, you want people like him who won’t falter or sell out. You want those true believers.
If he accepted donations, then he wouldn’t be the kind of person that made uBlock Origins what it is.
You’re lying, because uBlock Origins refuses donations. They are adamant about the purity of the project.
after some further research, it became apparent that Discord staff could save a significant amount of money by changing S3 providers. The new bucket was set up, but when the time came to make the change NC refused to do it, even though he was not the one footing the bill.
There’s a conspicuous absence of explaining why they wouldn’t do it. What were their actual concerns? Did they not voice them or are they just being withheld?
NC refused to join the Discord to talk about solutions in real-time.
Why was this a requirement?
Did we vent in private? Sure.
And what did you say?
Did we dox or threaten? Fucking hell, no! And frankly I’m LIVID at even the suggestion that we did.
Well something clearly happened if his family was brought into it, so if you’re going to skimp on the details, I’m not sure how I’m supposed to believe that.
The whole thing just comes back to the larger issue with discord: the record vanishes.
If it’s a romhacking site, it wont have the actual ROMs, just the patches. It never would have survived 20 years if it had been hosting ROMs.
Find me any charitable, non-profit, or community organization that wouldn’t call the cops if someone was breaking into their networking closet to install data harvesting hardware.