However, that's an extreme case imho - you do that when you can't fix that library's bug or wrong behaviour.

But for things like key names and such, i dont think this applies - those key names are part of the library's api - and i often find that clojure libraries don't document them (or do but it's one of those auto-generated docs that dont mean anything).

or that is a good spend of time where you familiarize yourself with said library (as they say, the documentation is the code!).

Usually the library is well written enough that you can browse through the source code and immediately see the pattern(s) or keys. The additional experimentation with the REPL means you can just play around and visually see the data in the repl.

A spec does similar (and it does make it easier to seek through the source to find it).

they used to care, but they don't now, because these corps have sufficient monopolistic control to not require "outsiders" to push their design language, develop new ideas, influence or programs.

In fact, it seems to me that these big corps want power users out, as they disrupt the agenda, find workarounds for "features" being pushed out that should have been mandatory for pleb users!

> [Linux is] still not right for the average joe but it's on its way and a few more specialty distros are already there (e.g. steamos).

i hope that is the future, because it's the only road to freedom for general computation. Unfortunately, the hard part is not the end user's acceptance of it, but the hardware manufacturers, who are being gripped by the balls one way or another. Unless they're willing to sacrifice any microsoft certification etc, they will be somehow beholden to them (may be not now, but certainly in the future when linux truly threatens window's dominance).

If a gov't official (including the president) is leaking classified information, there's already laws about that isnt there? (Whether it's effective is another question - i'm assuming it's currently effective).

so from bin laden's perspective, this would've been a good outcome isnt it?

Can't say what a good outcome is without saying who.

What if enemies of the USA had corrupt generals who also make bets on anti-US actions to profit personally, and inadvertently reveal information to the CIA/NSA, who then prevent such anti-US actions? Would that not have been a good outcome as well?

Information is information - and one cannot say if it's good or not. However, i am a believer that more information generally do good than bad - assuming the consumer of said information is smart.

> Are you losing money because you bet on the wrong outcome ...

It doesnt matter, because you chose to bet. You do not need to bet in order to make use of the information being revealed by those who are betting.

the problem is that those people who don't agree with me are also not taking the externalized cost of non-action.

The bias is built into it.

And the negligent driver also didn't mean to cause injury, yet we have laws on negligent driving.

If the NY Times would have known that harm could come to someone by having information published, they should consult and/or take measures to prevent that harm (or at least, take measures to minimize it).

Or they appear(ed) in public to make something of being in public (such as lobbying, or civic activities, or philanthropy etc). This makes any article about them not a doxx - they already revealed themselves publicly. You cannot segregate public affairs of the person with private affairs.

Exactly why i said

> turn off these measures in a way that is undetectable.

If you own the device, you ought to have the means to make such configuration/changes in undetectable ways. Otherwise, you don't truly own the device.

Some apps want to run on devices that you don't "own", because they are doing something the owner would not want done (in secret or what not).

If you own the computer yourself, you "ought" to be able to turn off these measures in a way that is undetectable. Being unable to do so would be the red line imho - and looking at those hypervisor cracks available, it's not quite being crossed. The pessimistic, but realistic future prediction is that various media companies would want and lobby for machines to have unbreakable enclaves for which they can "trust" to DRM your machine, and it's just boiling the frog right now. Windows 11's new TPM requirement is testament to that.

Switch to linux asap - that's about the only thing a consumer is capable of doing.

The claim that AI is itself dangerous has no merit.

I would deny that AI poses any such threat. There are actors who would use the tool in ways that threaten as you described, but that is a threat from said actor, not AI - unless you're claiming that an AGI would be capable of such independent actions.

AI is similar in transformative power to how the internet was a transformative power - might even be greater, if it is more commonly available for use through out the world. Whether that transformative power is doing good or bad really depends on the people doing it, not on the tech. I would bet that the future is going to be better because of AI, than to imagine a worse future and act to stunt the tech.

And under the capitalist system, if nothing changes, the "new" distribution system is indeed not going to favour them - at best there would be some sort of UBI, and at worst you would be left to starve in the streets.

However, i cannot see how one can transition to a new system, and yet have the existing powers in the current system agree and not be disadvantaged.