Kind of, but the requirements on such a system are far stricter than what we get (and expect) from certificate authorities. For example, the CA system doesn't fail in its goals if I publish (no matter if accidentally or incidentally) the private key for *.mydomain.com; but the proposed image verification scheme does become useless if one of the many manufacturers does that; the CA system doesn't fail just because CAs will issue a certificate to phishing sites run by some criminal, but the proposed image verification scheme does become useless if some manufacturers will issue a "camera" certificate that can be extracted and used in some criminal's Photoshop workstation instead of a real camera.
For web CA's to work, all you need is that the single certificate for the site you're choosing to visit is good - but if you want to use a similar system to verify trustworthiness of viral images originating from strangers through social media, you need 100% of the camera certificates to be valid - if there are any leaked certificates, then manufacturers of fake images will use those; and on the other hand if you "revoke" everything from any compromised manufacturer, people won't just replace their cameras, they'll simply keep posting data with their valid-but-invalid certificates and you'll either have to automatically mistrust lots of genuine true content or be vulnerable to fake data, and most people will choose the latter.
I find it incredibly obnoxious and I refuse to use parallel because of it. To me, it violates the spirit of free software and tarnishes the GNU project. As someone who has released my source to the public for free, I couldn't fathom adding such a flag.
Its possible for thr broad medical community to not be in line with the latest research (diagnostic criteria are somewhat trailing), and evidence of that would be the strongest possible support for a claim that the broad community was wrong (because it had not incorporated the latest relevant research.)
Now, sure, its useless for convincing the speaker (though not others who may be witnessing the debate) to bring out research evidence if the argument is “the medical community is wrong, and my source for that is my own unsupported belief bolstered by a conspiracy theory that the truth is actively suppressed from publication.”
I'm not diagreein with you, but one should bear in mind that a piano essentially contains 88 copies of the same mechanism (with some exceptions). That brings you from 12,000 parts to 136 parts, which is much simpler to grasp. Of course, having 88 copies creates its own challenges.
I read this years ago and it really resonated with me at the time. Why reinvent the wheel, right?
Reading it again now, it seems to advocate for going from one extreme to another without exercising judgement. A shell script might be fine in one context and irresponsible in another... but I guess nuance and circumstance don't make for interesting blog posts.
Cobbling together a script is great for one-off work if it gets the job done. What it's not good for is your core business, if it's going to evolve and need refinement over a longer duration with continuous feature additions and changes. Maybe someone who's brilliant could start with a python script and evolve it into Django during the project, but could also simply switch to Django early on.
Yeah I totally agree, but I do think there are times when starting with the absolute most basic implementation that meets the business needs is the way to go. That could be a simple bash script, or a python script without Django, etc.
In my experience, the key is making those tradeoff decisions in an educated manner. Ideally, product and engineering and in sync and have a somewhat informed view of the future, so appropriate tradeoffs on velocity (simple bash script) versus extensibility (Python with Django) can be discussed.
Definitely true at startups where it's that or what else you could/should be doing, and maybe in a few months a pivot means it's mostly discarded for a new adventure.
Slightly tangential: is it unfair/unreasonable to judge a project by its name? It's hard not to interpret this project's name as the result of poor judgement. Is that sufficient cause to write off the project entirely? That may seem a tad dramatic but I feel that it's a fairly strong signal for how little effort I need to put into evaluating it.
