Add content/blog/2025-11-03-salaw.md

content/_index.md

@@ -14,8 +14,6 @@ you can always email me at [finonmoon@gmail.com](mailto:finonmoon@gmail.com). my
 i also have a blog. you can find the recent blogposts below. you also can subscribe to my [rss feed](./rss.xml)
 
 # Recent blogposts
-- [piracy](./blog/piracy)
-- [The Legal Tradition of South Africa](./blog/salaw)
-- [ecosystems](./blog/ecosystems)
+ > [the strangeness of applying to us colleges](./blog/usappweird)
 
 #### [all posts](./blog)

content/blog/2024-09-14-piracy.md

@@ -1,40 +0,0 @@
-+++
-date = 2024-09-14
-title = "🏴‍☠️piracy🏴‍☠️"
-[extra]
-toc = true
-+++
-
-> _note: this post is translated from russan, but other than a few examples used in it, it is still relevant_
-
-so, i've wanted to write about online piracy for a while, and i've finally gotten around to it, so here is my take on the moral side of this issue. it's important to note that this is a question of morality, and specifically the one that has formed in my mind over the last 2.5 years. i'll say right away that any piracy is, one way or another, always on the verge of theft, and according to the "general rule" in my head, it's a bad thing. this is because the author generally has certain rights to control their creations after they are released
-
-# 0. the foundation.
-i want to immediately note that in this case, we'll be talking primarily about the internet, or to be more precise, a part of it - the world wide web (hereafter, the web). at the same time, i want to point out that the concept of the open web, i.e., a free web, is very important to me personally. i believe the internet is a place of freedom, and it's extremely important that no one (including the state) can centralize the web around themselves. i also believe the internet should be a place for everyone, giving each person the opportunity to express themselves on it. you can read the [open web manifesto](https://openwebsitealliance.org/charter.html#open-web-manifesto:~:text=four%20weeks%20notice.-,Appendix%20I%3A%20Open%20Web%20Manifesto,-The%20following%20is) and the [free software definition](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en) if you're interested. because of all this and more, there are situations in which piracy becomes justified
-
-# 1. it is always moral to pirate adobe software.
-what's so special about adobe? this phrase, of course, refers to adobe applications, but it actually covers a much wider range of things, including windows, microsoft office, autodesk revit, and others. what all these programs have in common is that they are de-facto monopolists in their markets and either became so by actively resorting to anti-competitive behavior or turned to it after capturing the market, preventing new competitors from emerging. for example, adobe actively engages in practices like deceptive subscriptions that are very, very difficult to cancel ([ftc press release](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/06/ftc-takes-action-against-adobe-executives-hiding-fees-preventing-consumers-easily-cancelling), [pdf of the lawsuit](https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/040-UnredactedComplaint.pdf)), and it recently nearly [absorbed](https://www.theverge.com/2023/12/18/24005996/adobe-figma-acquisition-abandoned-termination-fee) one of its main competitors, figma. and microsoft, for instance, is known for a strategy called embrace, extend, and extinguish (i think it's clear enough), which they used to destroy certain free standards ([article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish)). as you can imagine, those who pull stunts like these don't adhere to any standards themselves, and therefore, it can be argued that they are stealing your right to a free web and often your right to choose an alternative, which means you generally have the right to pirate their software. the issue is that by doing so, you are de-facto reinforcing their monopoly, which is why i insist that before you pirate photoshop or windows, you think about whether a free alternative really isn't suitable for you (it might be true that it isn't, but it's likely that an alternative, at least one worth considering, exists). important: not every large company necessarily falls into this category
-
-# 2. abandonware.
-[this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonware) is a category of software that was originally distributed online under a [proprietary license](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software) but was later abandoned by its developers and can now only be obtained through piracy. in my opinion, in this case, the right to access information, combined with the principle of an open web, outweighs the developer's right to control what other people do with copies of their original code, especially given that from a material point of view, it doesn't matter to the developer whether you get the software through piracy or simply don't get it at all. therefore, pirating such software is moral. i'll also briefly touch on copies here, as it needs to be mentioned, but i have neither the energy to write nor a fully formed position on all of copyright law. from what i've already written, you can tell that i don't have a major problem with copying content online if i don't have a problem with pirating it. but there are at least two other scenarios i'm fine with: copying that, from the author's perspective, is equivalent to no copying at all (for example, the internet archive, as a library, bought a book, made a digital copy of it, and allows one person at a time to use that copy while the original is not in use. i condemn this [u.s. court decision](https://artreview.com/the-internet-archive-lawsuit-marks-an-ending-opinion-michelle-santiago-cortes/)), as well as copying related to the historical preservation of information until it reaches abandonware status, at which point it can be distributed quite freely again
-
-# 3. science is not only for the rich.
-pirating scientific articles is good and right. just like that, plain and simple, with almost no caveats. why? if you've ever been on google scholar, you've probably seen that many articles cost around $20 or even more if you don't have a university account. well, in the vast majority of cases, that money [won't go](https://danielroelfs.com/blog/the-money-in-scientific-publishing/) to the scientist who wrote the article; instead, it will go to the journal and, perhaps, some publishers. what's more, the scientist also has to pay anywhere from a few hundred up to $10,000 for publication. so unless it's a small journal you want to support, or a unique agreement between the journal and the scientist that you're aware of - pirate away. the situation with textbooks is a bit more complicated, as authors do receive some royalties, but in general, especially if it's not a new textbook, i don't see a major problem with pirating them either, especially if the publisher doesn't provide a decent electronic version of the textbook or a proper app for it. but another idea fits well here: if you want to support educators, scientists, or anyone else, it's often better to just donate to them directly—they'll simply get more, and you'll spend less
-
-# 4. government as usual.
-if something is made with taxpayer money and is not free and is not distributed under an open license or placed in the public domain - it's a scam. feel free to pirate it all, because public money should be used to create things that benefit the public in as many ways as possible
-
-# 5. ads that run the world.
-in my opinion, ad blocking falls under piracy because you are bypassing the creator's requirement for accessing their content, thereby depriving them of their earnings, especially when even maintaining a simple, existing one-page website without updates will cost the creator at least $30 a year just for the domain and the simplest server on a cheap host. meanwhile, on a platform like vk, for example, the average cost per ad impression is about [10 kopecks](https://popsters.ru/blog/post/svezhie-dannye-o-vk#:~:text=%D0%92%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9%20%D1%84%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%20%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%20%D0%92%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B5%2C%20%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA,%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5%20%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9%20%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%8B%20E%2Dpromo.), which correlates pretty well with the rest of the russian internet. consequently, if you visit a site and just block ads without a second thought - that's problematic. does this mean ads should never be blocked? no, i see a few exceptions that justify ad blocking. first, we can go back to point 1 and monopolies. if you can only order a taxi on, say, [yandex taxi], and it also shows you ads - block the hell out of them. the second point is broken promises. if there's a platform like [twitter] that makes a series of demands on you and then shows you ads for online casinos and even worse things ([click](https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/x-users-fed-up-with-constant-stream-of-malicious-crypto-ads/)) - blocking is also justified in my view. but again, maybe it's worth looking for an alternative and supporting developers who respect you, instead of driving traffic to a bad site
-
-## 5.1. youtube.
-i think this is a fairly unique place on the internet, as it's one of the few major platforms that allows content creators to actually earn money from built-in ads, since youtube takes [45%](https://www.thinkific.com/blog/youtube-money-per-view/#:~:text=YouTube%20keeps%2045%25%20of%20the,your%20niche%2C%20and%20your%20location.) for itself, while the rest goes to the youtubers (there might be others taking a cut, like producers, but that's not youtube's doing). accordingly, i genuinely believe that in this case, if you really watch a lot of youtube, premium is actually a good thing for both the people you watch and for you. but, then again, youtube regularly shows less-than-great ads, failing to moderate them properly, so to some extent, i also understand the position of those who prefer to block ads. and plus, let's not forget that buying premium is difficult right now, which i've mentioned and will mention again
-
-# 6. are y'all entertained?
-music, movies, books, and games, as well as all other forms of classic entertainment in that vein. is it moral to pirate them? usually - no. the essence of creative professions is to engage an audience, and these are precisely the professions that can suffer greatly when their works are de-facto stolen. and even when we're talking about big studios - a studio can't just take your photograph and use it in their film without your consent. nevertheless, i believe that everyone, regardless of their background and so on, has a right to access culture. this is a large part of the function of a free web - to give everyone equal access to public life, regardless of who they are. consequently, if the only way to get access to something is piracy, then it is justified. [here is an example](https://www.indy100.com/gaming/ultrakill-arsi-hakita-patala-pirating) of an indie game developer (who seem to be one of the most vulnerable groups in this regard) discussing this very topic, where they make a very interesting point: a purchase isn't the only way to support developers; telling your friends about the game and many other forms of support are also valid. it turns out that the inability to pay for access to culture (for any reason) is a sufficient argument to engage in piracy. you just need to be honest with yourself about whether you truly can't pay and, if so, whether you can support someone's work in other ways
-
-# 7. emulate that nintendo, now!
-let me say this right away - [emulating](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emulation) something is not piracy in and of itself. if it's done for the preservation of something that could be lost, to expand access to information for those who truly couldn't access it otherwise, and for a whole ton of other legitimate reasons - it's a good and useful thing. so yes - fuck nintendo ([one](https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/4/24090357/nintendo-yuzu-emulator-lawsuit-settlement), [two](https://www.thegamer.com/a-snapshot-of-nintendos-convoluted-legal-history/)) and apple ([one](https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/11/22620014/apple-corellium-security-virtual-iphone-dmca-lawsuit-settled)), and everyone else who tries to sue emulators
-
-# 8. conclusion.
-so, as you can probably guess, there are a whole bunch of different cases and variations of how piracy can exist on the web, and i don't plan on dissecting all of them here, but i think my logic is more or less clear. if you've actually read this far - wow, thank you

content/blog/2025-01-20-ecosystems.md

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
++++
+date = 2025-01-20
+title = "ecosystems"
++++
+> an ecosystem is a biological system consisting of a community of living organisms, their habitat, and the system of connections that facilitates the exchange of matter and energy between them.
+
+i really dislike how modern marketing hacks from large corporations are twisting the word ecosystem. originally, the word means the co-existence of several independent actors who together create an environment and maintain a balance within it
+
+the combinations of "airpods + iphone," "yandex taxi + yandex maps," "mts service + something else," or "a 3d printer + its software" — all of this is, at best, vertical integration, and at worst, a blatant attempt to lock you into a manufacturer and thus avoid the need to compete. but it is definitely not an ecosystem in the sense of a system of independent actors
+
+for comparison, let me give you examples of real digital ecosystems. the windows ecosystem (or macos/other oses) as a combination of the operating system with all its applications, plugins, user settings, accessories, and so on. in this case, we truly have a whole set of independent actors capable of compensating for each other's shortcomings (for example, an application that sets a video as a desktop wallpaper, adapting the ecosystem to the absence of such a feature in its central product)
+
+another example: the ecosystem of hdmi devices, as the collection of everything that can be connected to each other using it. or consider this: the smartphone ecosystem, as the aggregate of phone manufacturers, accessories, spare parts, modifications, the application ecosystem, repair technicians, and many others
+
+here, by the way, we also encounter concepts like ecosystem control and openness. good examples of attempts at control include apple's endless efforts to prohibit third-party repairs of its devices, bambu lab's recent disabling of the api in its 3d printers, nintendo's fight against anything that resembles fun outside of what is "permitted," and much, much more. of course, no matter what the marketing hacks invent or tell you, for the end user (as well as for all other participants in the ecosystem), such actions are harmful 99.99% of the time
+
+how can one avoid situations of unreasonably high control over ecosystems? the most reliable option is to use what can be called open ecosystems. these are ecosystems formed around an open standard—that is, a standard whose creators guarantee the full right to use it without asking for permission, and who have no control over what supports it. in most cases, openness is achieved through specific licenses under which the standard is distributed
+
+a good example of an open ecosystem is bluetooth. it (unlike the aforementioned hdmi, by the way) is completely open, and its developers allow everyone to use it without needing to ask for permission. consequently, even if its developers go crazy tomorrow and release a new version with something strange in it, everyone will just continue to use the old version
+
+another obvious example is the linux ecosystem, which consists of hundreds and hundreds of independent projects distributed under free licenses that guarantee users a certain set of freedoms, including the freedom to study the code, modify it, and distribute modified versions
+
+i'll quickly note that open ecosystems also have the ability to easily integrate with other ecosystems, making life easier for everyone. for example, the linux ecosystem is part of the posix ecosystem, and the ai development ecosystem is part of the linux one
+
+conclusion: remember that when you hear the word ecosystem, it's more likely that someone is just trying to lock you into their company and limit your choices, because real ecosystems rarely have millions of dollars to spend on marketing hacks

content/blog/2025-11-03-salaw.md

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
++++
+date = 2025-11-03
+title = "The Legal Tradition of South Africa (and some of its neighbors)"
++++
+> updated 14.12.25 with corrections and improvements
+
+the legal system of the republic of south africa is a mixture of common, civil, and customary law. interestingly, both common law and customary law are explicitly mentioned in the text of the constitution (constitution of the republic of south africa, 1996): “when interpreting any legislation, and when developing the common law or customary law, every court, tribunal or forum must promote the spirit, purport and objects of the bill of rights.” (chapter 2 (bill of rights), section 39(2)).
+
+to understand how this came to be, a brief excursion into the history of south africa is required. in 1652, the netherlands, represented by the voc (vereenigde oostindische compagnie, the dutch east india company), established the first european colony in what is now south africa. along with them, the colonizers brought roman-dutch law. of course, local legal customs existed there before this, but they were not documented, and therefore not much is known about them.
+
+the dutch administration remained in various forms until the beginning of the 19th century. during this period, the colonial administration imported laws in the style of the metropole to regulate more complex and abstract social relations, including contracts, trade, and much more.
+
+in 1806, the dutch colonies de facto came under the control of great britain (and de jure in 1814). during the period of british rule, there were several colonies in south africa, each with its own approach to governance. for example, in the colony of natal, customary law, which was much more applicable to the daily life of the indigenous population, was not completely eradicated. a 19th-century report concluded that “customary law is not incompatible with roman-dutch law,” which still held great influence at the time. in the northern colonies, by contrast, the codification of customary laws and the coercion of indigenous people to adopt the new codified law were actively practiced.
+
+the influence of common law grew gradually. for instance, it was under english influence that trial by jury appeared and became widespread in south africa. in 1910, the union of south africa was formed, which was within the british sphere of influence. this led to an even greater increase in the influence of common law, and by 1931, a mixed legal system had emerged under english influence: a skeleton of english law and the flesh of roman-dutch law (hahlo, h. r., & kahn, e. the union of south africa: the development of its laws and constitution. — cape town: juta & company, 1960).
+
+in 1931, south africa gained independence, though it remained in the commonwealth of nations. a little earlier, a law was passed that secured the position of customary law. in 1948, apartheid was established in south africa – a system in which the population was segregated based on race. under this regime, the country's authorities used a distorted and codified version of customary law to control the african population through a system of bantustans and appointed chiefs (for example, through the "bantu authorities act" of 1951), although it was de facto supported by external force. furthermore, with the proclamation of a republic in 1961, the country began to distance itself from common law. for example, by 1969, trial by jury had been abolished. after the apartheid regime fell by 1990, the country found itself in a situation where it needed to fill the legal void left by the old law, which had become illegitimate due to its close ties with apartheid.
+
+at that moment, the legal system that has survived to our time, albeit with certain changes, was created. the main event in the formation of south africa's legal system was the adoption of the 1996 constitution, which explicitly enshrined the mixture of different legal traditions: “the bill of rights does not deny the existence of any other rights or freedoms that are recognised or conferred by common law, customary law or legislation…” (chapter 2, section 39(3)).
+
+the constitution itself de facto divides all law into “common law” and “customary law.” it is important to note that what the constitution calls “common law” is in fact a complex interweaving of two legal traditions: common law and civil law.
+
+the following are borrowed from the civil law tradition:
+*   the format of the constitution
+*   the bill of rights as part of the constitution
+*   the law of property and obligations. for example, south africa's legal system follows the classification of things adopted in roman law
+*   principles of family law
+*   the law of succession
+
+the importance of the bill of rights (chapter 2 of the constitution) deserves special attention. all courts are instructed to interpret all matters based on it and in accordance with its spirit. this idea is part of transformative constitutionalism – a politico-legal concept, particularly prevalent in south africa, which establishes that the constitution is not just a set of dry rules, but an active instrument for transforming people's lives and eliminating inequality. according to this concept, the constitution is a kind of “project for the future,” on the basis of which courts have quite broad discretion and a duty of active intervention. for example, under this concept, any right becomes enforceable, even if there is no law that effectively supports that right and which has been violated. at this point, it is logical to discuss what was borrowed from the common law tradition:
+*   procedural law, where both civil and criminal processes are based on the english adversarial model.
+*   the law of evidence, which is almost entirely copied from english law
+*   commercial and corporate law
+*   administrative law
+*   the important role of judicial precedent
+
+at the same time, courts are supposed not just to interpret but to “develop” the common law (as written in section 173 of the constitution). it is also specified that only the constitutional court, the supreme court of appeal, and the high courts may do so (there used to be a separate supreme court of general jurisdiction, as in classic civil law countries, but it was reformed into the supreme court of appeal), but not the lower (magistrates') courts.
+
+this system, mixing two major legal traditions, is interesting but not unique in itself. what makes it particularly interesting is chapter 12 of the constitution, which recognizes traditional leaders and also obliges courts to apply customary law in proceedings where it is applicable. the constitution itself does not provide more details on how this system should be structured, but many details on how such a feature, so unusual for modern legal systems, should work can be learned from two important cases decided by the constitutional court.
+
+the first such decision was in 2001 in the case of _alexkor v richtersveld community_, where the court faced the question of whether the richtersveld community had a right to the land in 1913 and whether it had been violated by unjust laws. in its judgment, the court established two crucial principles for working with customary law. first, customary law is an independent source of law that should be applied separately, not through the prism of common law. second, the court established that customary law is limited by the constitution and by laws that directly regulate it. at the same time, the court noted that indigenous law is not a fixed set of formal norms and easily definable rules, but a living organism consisting of the traditions of the people who live by such law. these traditions are passed down from generation to generation, dynamically adapting to the needs of the community that practices this law. in the end, the court ruled that the land belonged to the community.
+
+despite this, customary law was still avoided in many proceedings due to the difficulty of working with it. this was largely changed by the case of _shilubana and others v nwamitwa (2008)_, in which the court considered shilubana's complaint that the valoyi community had elected a woman as its leader (hosi), whereas previously the senior male of a particular family, which was shilubana, had been elected. in that case, the constitutional court established a special test setting out general principles for the application of customary law. it includes consideration of the traditions of the subjects of the law (including existing practices), the right of traditional communities to develop their own law (including an examination of the process that led to the changes), and a search for a balance between the old and the new (by comparing the consequences of different decisions for the various parties to the case and for third parties). the court then decided that the valoyi community's decision to appoint ms. shilubana as chief was a legitimate development of their customary law.
+
+these cases did not resolve all the issues related to customary law (for example, we have not considered the question of what to do if traditional law conflicts between different communities or if it contradicts the constitution by violating someone's rights). however, they established an important foundation for its application, allowing it to be used in various cases without compromising legal certainty.
+
+in summary, the south african legal tradition (which, in addition to south africa, is also used with its own peculiarities in namibia, zimbabwe, eswatini, botswana, and lesotho) is an interesting mixture of a civil law foundation, common law processes and specific spheres, and the traditional law of local communities, for the consideration of which it is especially important to understand the spirit of the constitution.