The article is mostly about the backlash, which is not pretty either.
Historically, internet users were young, educated, and urban (or old, and working in a research lab, tech company, or university) - probably mostly Democrats in the US.
Over the last few years (as you now need the internet to do banking and pretty much anything else) it's now roughly equalised. It wasn't that long ago that people were shocked that "Mom" was on Facebook. In 2010-2013, the conservative networks (news sites, social network cliques, forums, etc.) really started to form. As an example, Twitchy (a fairly popular conservative "news" site made up of embedded tweets and commentary) was founded in 2012.
There's always been Libertarian and right-wing internet users, but now it's reached the same fever pitch as the left-wing outrage machine. It's no longer just Libertarians talking about how the government is the source of all evil, or an alt-right conspiracy theorist, it's that Jane Sixpack can now access the internet just as easily as a college kid.
I suspect the bulk of people on the internet used to think the outrage machine was a bunch of well-meaning idiots. But when it's the extreme Republicans (who were previously a tiny minority on the internet) pulling the same shit, it starts to be obvious why this is a problem.
> Tor is having a fit of institutional pique that researchers are compromising the network's privacy guarantees by, well, looking at it.
> If you write security software, and you're not praying that loyal opposition hits you with everything they've got, you're not doing security
> Tor is intended to be, and is marketed as, robust against nation state adversaries. It cannot possibly be so if it worries about academics.
1. It's OK to go after Tor. This is dead wrong - attacking a network without permission is very bad form. Maybe it's OK to do the equivalent of checking to see if someone's front door is locked (this is a grey area), but only if you intend to warn them that their door's unlocked. Going through their stuff is obviously unethical (and probably illegal).
2. Tor should be more permissive, encouraging more attacks from researchers.
Obviously, the researchers crossed the line when they started gathering user data. But Tor should only be upset that the attack went too far, not that the attack succeeded.
I'm not sure of the context - was the Tor community pissed off that researchers found a weakness, or pissed off that the weakness was exploited?
Twitter is a pretty poor platform if you want nuance, so it's probably best to be charitable in your interpretations of what people say there.
Was he really? The White Man's Burden isn't that ambiguous. Not now, and not even when it was written.
It was about the Philippine-American war. 2 days after publication in America, it was read in the Senate to argue for the US to end the war.
One of his more famous stories, The Man Who Would Be King is about two white men who manage to convince an Afghani tribe they're gods. It becomes undone, when one tries to marry one of the women, she attacks him drawing blood, and the tribe's priest declares he is "Neither god nor devil but a man!" (at which point one is brutally killed, and the other manages to flee). It could almost be read as an analogy for colonialism - the white men might have had a technological edge, and used shock and awe to take over, but as the natives catch on to what's happening, the risk of backlash and revolution grows.
Kipling wasn't firmly against colonialism, but he was a savvy (sometimes cynical) realist. Most colonials were pretty cynical about it.
Here's the problem - NO-ONE WILL FUCKING READ THAT. (Sorry, just swearing to grab attention).
Linus isn't just talking to the submitter. He knows perfectly well that his rants will be read by everyone in the community. A polite "plz fix it" will go unnoticed.
I'm not sure whether there's some common understanding that his rants are just an act, to get everyone to read them. Or if Linus thinks that it's actually justified to be a dick when people fuck up. But I think it's a factor - when Linus rants, everyone pays attention, and Linus will certainly be aware of that.
Yes, it would be nice if people paid attention to him being polite. But if he wrote it like the rewritten suggestion, only a handful of people would read it, and they're probably not the the type of people who are making the mistakes to begin with.
If people ask Linus to do anything, ask him to politely reach out to the people he flames, and let them know that the reason for his grandstanding is mostly just to grab eyeballs. It raises an important issue, and while he may be annoyed at the bad submit the level of vitriol is only really there to grab attention.
Seriously? I can understand if people do it a few times and ignore him, but on the first occasion someone makes an attempt at submitting some code they honestly believed would be helpful and he craps on them from a great height? Charming.
I think it's wrong to just categorise law enforcement as a bunch of racists. Especially in the UK (cough Rotherham).
It's also a bit strange to hear someone accusing the police of all being black and white thinkers, who like putting everyone in little boxes, enjoy using their power, and being extremely insular. You could say the same about the kind of progressives who think all police are racists.
There probably is an element of truth, in that law enforcement does have black and white thinking. If someone is a suspect, they can act like it's their job to haul them in at all costs, unless breaking the rules would hurt the case. Yes, it's an adversarial legal system, but sometimes the police and prosecution can seem to lack discretion.
Also, the amount of funding they have to clamp down on terrorism is quite disproportionate. There's a lot of police tracking down a tiny number of needles in a haystack, so anyone who looks remotely like a terrorist risks being treated as a suspect.