Eric Stanek 🇨🇦

That's my understanding too, and also what Claude Sonnet says after researching. It makes sense to me. I'm sure there are many laws in other countries we each break every day, without even knowing. Thing is, we are not in those countries. For example, China blocks much of the Internet because it is deemed illegal. They don't fine the world for hosting websites.

@eric_stanek @quilnux @LundukeJournal My interpretation of this is that you must make the software available to everyone or no one. Brazil can block your website, but you can't block Brazil, under the terms of the license.

Can anyone in Brazil confirm this?

THE WHITE HOUSE JUST MADE CRYPTO SPENDING EASIER. A tax exemption for crypto payments. This changes everything. Now buying coffee with Bitcoin is a taxable event. Every transaction. Every purchase. Every payment. The White House just said that's about to end. Think about what this actually unlocks. Pay with crypto. No tax event. Spend your Bitcoin freely. Use stablecoins like cash. The last barrier between crypto and everyday adoption. Gone. They called it a scam. They called it untraceable crime. They tried to regulate it to death. Now the White House is making it easier to spend. The full 180 is complete. Every single wall is coming down simultaneously. The window to accumulate before mainstream adoption… Is closing faster than anyone realizes.

@Averyflash @AmandaAchtman @TheBartonnz x.com/eric_stanek/st…

@AmandaAchtman @TheBartonnz This never happened. It’s not how maid works.

I met an 84-year-old woman who was offered euthanasia at a Canadian hospital practically upon arrival. Miriam didn’t want to die. She recovered well and travelled to Cuba, Mexico, and Guatemala. Stop offering death to people who have adventures to lead!

@AmandaAchtman @grok is this true?

To the Moon 🚀

Dude. I am quite new to following @grapheneOS but I've already seen your position thoroughly debunked. It is clear you have no clue what you are talking about, or do, and are faking being so incompetent. Thing is, you're achieving the opposite effect, because it shows me how strong GrapheneOS is. Now. Stop trolling, and go get a life. I mean, THINK about how pathetic you really are spreading this FUD. It's disgusting. How can you not be ashamed of yourself?

It's kind of funny how @GrapheneOS wants to let everybody know about the "dangers" of "closed source operating systems" yet they themselves ship precompiled, presigned applications that are included in their OS and are NOT reproducible, the most you can do is compile them out of tree and include them manually. And even then, this is still a MAJOR security risk as their precompiled apps have permissions that you really don't want apps to be granted implicitly. I've attached a photo of all the permissions available to the Messaging app, which is included in GrapheneOS at build-time as a prebuilt application. I should mention this, the aforementioned Messaging application has no form of reproducible builds, meaning the only way to update these apps is for some developer to manually build this application on their build PC, sign it and then push it to a git repo. Imagine the security implications of that. (You can unzip the app yourself to check the manifest too.) github.com/GrapheneOS/pla… This is the module included into GrapheneOS. Meanwhile the actual messaging app is at github.com/GrapheneOS/Mes…. For reasons beyond me, GrapheneOS devs thought it fit to remove the Android blueprints from it, therefore making this app unbuildable inside the Android source itself. #L378" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">github.com/GrapheneOS/pla… The inclusion of said prebuilt Messaging app. It's not just this app either. The included App Store, the Camera app, hell, even the Auditor. All of these apps are presigned and precompiled, and granted implicit permissions to do whatever. Why not compile them in-tree? WHY go out of your way to make them unbuildable by removing the blueprints? It's not about adding one yourself and doing it yourself, that's completely besides the point. The point is, why is some OS claiming to be security focused, yet has the ability to infect devices with a theoretical malware spread with these prebuilt apps? Why are these apps not built in-tree in the first place!? There is literally no excuse, every other app is compiled in-tree except these GrapheneOS inclusions. How does it feel to trust a random person with an app that can theoretically upload all your data to a remote server without your knowledge? Further more, besides doing such things, GrapheneOS devs have the _nerve_ to go forth and cement their beliefs on others? When they themselves don't commit to their standards? If this isn't an absolute form of hypocrisy, I really don't know what is. Maybe this post will instill some form of awareness in die-hard GOS fans. Maybe I'll get to deal with insane backlash. Who knows. At least I'm putting it out there. Maybe one day we'll get to know that this entire project was a honeypot.

Thanks for the support and acknowledgment! 🙌 We keep building 💪 Long live the $PIVX community! 💜🚀

Liberals: Carney can't do anything to reduce gas prices right now. Me: Um...... Eliminate the GST on gasolone/diesel, eliminate the federal gas tax, eliminate/pause the industrial carbon tax, cancel the clean fuel standard AKA carbon tax 2.

His insurance claim was rejected thanks to the data the car collected on him Is your car brand mentioned here?

@splinterhood @LundukeJournal True! I think ALL Linux distros should leave Brazil and California etc. and stop providing security updates. Will be a slow burn internally as their infrastructure weakens, until they change their minds.

@eric_stanek @LundukeJournal You forgot to ask Brazil if they care.

@pyotrtek @LundukeJournal Well, why wouldn't the responsibility be on Brazil to block the Internet traffic at its border?

@eric_stanek @LundukeJournal Yes that violates it but by result of a Law enforcing the cease of distribution because they as distributors can't implement age verification. So Arch or any who block the access to their servers can't be legally blame for, they have to do this to comply what the law madates.

@GrumpyOldM43820 @LundukeJournal Ok. Good. We are on the same page.

@eric_stanek @LundukeJournal And *THAT* is exactly my point! If Brazil and other governments want to play silly buggers Then they can pay the price by spinning up and maintaining their own distro/repos. They have exactly zero right to the time and effort of FOSS devs & distro maintainers.

@SecurityTrybe Because both Linux and OSX 'Just works' while Windows 'Just breaks, advertises, interrupts, pushes AI, and updates.' But people can't ditch their PC, and OSX won't install on it. So, Linux is the obvious option, with no financial hit.

Why?

I have used various Linux distros for 25 years now. I only know of ONE person who compiles their own binaries. Everyone just trusts they match the source code, because everything is provided (signatures etc) to prove it. Sure, people shouldn't trust. They should verify. But let's face it .... not providing binaries that match, breaks trust. Plus, without binaries, no one will use Linux.

@eric_stanek @LundukeJournal Umm; No, Why would anyone put spyware into their own source code? If Brazil (etc) wants that, they can add it for themselves :) They can fork each and every component & maintain it themselves. The binaries are a red herring; GPL has literally nothing to say about binaries.

So, provide 2 sets of code and binaries? One with Age Attestation and one without? Sure, people could read the code, and make edits to remove it. Then compile it. But most people are not setup to do a proper build to match binaries. So, they're just going to want to grab the binary. To feel safe doing that, they'll need to know others could reproduce the binaries, but that means were back to square one, with the GPL not being followed.

@eric_stanek @LundukeJournal > Otherwise, the binaries can't be trusted to be free of malware etc I would argue, that with the source code you don't need any of that; You can just read the code :) And if the Brazilian Government want to use Linux, then they can spin up a BrazilOS for themselves. Fun times :)

Right. But building the source, should replicate the binaries exactly. Otherwise, the binaries can't be trusted to be free of malware etc. So, you can't have binaries with Age Attestation, and source code without. Plus, the GPL does not allow Age Attestation functionality be added, as that imposes restrictions. Definitely a mess.

@eric_stanek @LundukeJournal If a distro blocks binaries for Brazil that's fine according to the GPL As long as you provide a mechanism to access the Source code, you are golden. GPL is about the freedom of the source code, not the binaries.

@GrumpyOldM43820 @LundukeJournal Right. But the source can't add restrictions.

@eric_stanek @LundukeJournal No; The GPL says the *SOURCE* must be made available, it doesn't say *HOW* Back in the before times, you could ask for floppies and later CD-ROMs. A small fee could even be charged for manufacture & snail mail. So to comply you simply present a link to the source repos.

@PluviaMachina @LundukeJournal Imagine if all the Linux OS instances in all of California, could no longer receive updates. Lol. Something tells me they're not going to let that scenario play out.

@eric_stanek @LundukeJournal This actually helps Arch legally, as they can then claim California law forces them to break the terms of their license.

@pwnstar @LundukeJournal Here is a better summary. x.com/eric_stanek/st…

@eric_stanek @LundukeJournal No it doesn't.

@pwnstar @LundukeJournal Er. OK. Care to explain why, with support? Because I referenced specific sections of the GPL, which are quite clear in the wording.