INAL, but note that patents don't need to be reversed (they have to be public) and that reverse engineering doesn't need to infringe copyright. So do reverse engineer them: what you'll find is not patented (if it were it couldn't be secret) and if it's limited to ideas, not implementations, is not subject to copyrights. Reverse engineering isn't illegal in on itself. In fact, some (mild) legal exceptions even exist to support it (they may not be as strong as they should be).

It depends on what you value more. You have more right to portability than in any (other) platform (it's trivial to pull your events from many relays). Whether those who access your data will use it for illegitimate purposes isn't a technical question. Doing so would be illegal regardless of the technology.

In that case, thanks feds for running relays, we need relays.

You don't even need to run a relay, you can just fetch from other relays continuously.

Nostr is better for data mining than practically anything that ever existed.

Privacy isn't about secrecy, it's about ownership of personal data. Because Nostr gives you more control, it gives you more privacy. Does it give you more secrecy? No, unless you remain anonymous, which his account is not (he may have a separate anonymous account for all we know. That we can't know is the point).

Some clients truly are the Internet Explorer of Nostr: just do random undocumented shit and hope other clients adapt.

I wonder why the fuck Primal does this. I wish clients would stop misusing tags. If they have a special usecase for a tag, they should just make up their own tag, instead of misusing existing ones.

Your note data contains "r" tags pointing to relays, despite your text containing no link to any relay. I'm not aware of anything in the "standard" this is supposed to mean, what client are you using that does this?

cc: , and all other FLOSS advocates.

Ode to Blender. https://www.functorfault.net/posts/ode-to-blender/ #b3d #Blender #FreeSoftware #OpenSource #Floss #Christmas

They are the ones pushing AI shit none asked for, they don't care about users and they won't do this. Would many ask for it? Of course. Many asked them to reintroduce dislikes, one of the best features of YouTube, but YouTube didn't do so. There is a lot of really high-quality content on YouTube. It's up to us to find and share high-quality content and stop watching shit. For example, there is a lot of truly good educational content, both well-known (the usual: 3Blue1Brown, PBS Space Time and a lot more), but also many lesser known ones that are very good (channels explaining how some things in video games work, made by game developers, for example). There are however a lot of """educational""" channels that are just straight-up slop and misinformation. There have been for longer than this idiotic surge of AI slop. The usual flashy "top 10 things you didn't know" that are just 10 things you couldn't have known because they are false. Or just random "facts" written to make idiots feel smart. For entertainment, it's kind of the same thing: there are genuinely good and funny channels and brain-rot channels that somehow manage to catch our attention for hours without being genuinely funny or even pleasant, like a hack of the brain. We truly need to promote high quality and call out brainrot, in all forms, especially videos. As for a genuine AI filter, you can't actually build one and the existing ones are scam (which I hear even some teachers and professors are relying on, I think they should be fired).