From the producers of genocide, we present ecocide.
From the producers of genocide, we present ecocide.
Backporting security and bug fixes is a responsible and reasonable measure taken by any software that actually respects its users ESPECIALLY when a new breaking update is released. You failed at bullying a stranger with valid concerns. Try to bring reason with you next time before you decide to be rude and condescending.
73 million for a few years of a defederated Mastodon fork. Yeah, totally not fraud.
How about you read the one link you are commenting on before asking for another? It is in the article.
Smart phones and their consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
They "don't" allow it, that's how licenses work.
I keep seeing comments like these on source available nonfree software, but it really doesn't factor in the fact that older software is NOT going to be used due to bugs, features missing, technical debt, secuity vulnerabilities, etc. So unless it is forked (i.e: OpenTofu), it is as good as useless for everyone but hobbyists.
Oh, he has. You are just limiting your view to English-speaking subreddits, while non-English reddit is booming with terrorists.
If you really want to know how these companies would operate their websites, just look at the corners there of regions where they can't or won't be sued, or no press will cover the kind of awful content they allow.
economies of the world should justify a seizure of all their assets and dissolution of the State of Israel, with the land returned to arabs
Ah yes, the classic Israel 2.0 but with Arabs and Muslims this time.
See, this is why even though I am from an Arab country I don't jump quick into up-voting supporters of the basic human rights of Palestinians and Arabs. You are corrupting what should be about the rights and livelihoods of millions by wishing the same injustice happening to millions others instead of vanishing.
Your public domain assumption doesn't have to apply to others, legally or ideologically.
Data ownership does exist in the Fediverse, in fact it is one of its selling points that you can set up your server and own the data instead of using a surveillance capitalist SaaS that stores, manipulates and imposes legal rights over your data. Applications like Mastodon do send a federation request to other instances to delete data if submitters want to. Additionally, some users put licenses on their profile that might have restrictions (i.e: CC non-commerical, etc.) on what you are legally allowed to do with the data.
So no, accessing the data is not the same as using or processing it for many people, legally too in several parts of the world. Also, "innocuous curiosities" label is entirely subjective.
I am aware of the difference in philosophy taken by both Gnome and KDE, but would you mind elaborating on the 'assholes' bit?
That fuck them mentality won't get you anywhere. Your phone is a communications device. You need others to be using free protocols and software, otherwise your phone will be useless.
...and kids, this is why you (A)GPLv3 your code. Always.
It does not matter, that's irrelevant to the lawsuit. Google is not being asked to tank its own software. It is only required to provide freedom and informed choice to users, overcoming the anticompetitive advantage it gives itself by not giving users the informed choice to pick their preferred applications store.
That's not avoiding it, that's playing straight into it. That's exactly the best case scenario they drew when they made the decision to block VPN connections. You are giving them your data and allowing them to fingerprint you.
Old reddit still works fine, but I suspect it won't soon enough.
an idiot that agrees with anyone speaking confidently for more than 5 seconds.
Isn't that the bread and butter of Fascists? It is pretty much the hallmark of a Fascist movement to have a "confident speaker" to wow the masses.
It is free software. You can spin it up on your device, or go to any cheap hosting provider and host it there.
It's like the other comments are living in a parallel universe.
What part of the article did they actually read? Isn't the Slack/Electron resource utilisation screenshot enough to prove an important point?
No, Electron-based applications are not better than "they used to be."
We all fucking know why Electron got all of these companies interested in making applications with it: cheap, probably imported labour to build applications. That's it. And no, it is not better "DX" either. NPM and the NodeJS ecosystem in general are toxic and unsustainable for larger applications.
Honestly, I am always appalled by most "pop"-tech journalists like these. They either just repost the tech specs with the least nuance known to mankind, or they make absurd assumptions by having weird expectations (i.e: the infamous Cuphead review) going in. Seems like in this case it is both!
I attribute this to the much centralisation that completely deformed the internet, and a totalitarian attitude to criticism by critics (hypotactic, isn't it?) they remove and/or make it very hard to have a discussion on their articles.
Back before much of this centralisation of the internet, low-effort popcorn reviews like these would be absolutely panned in the very visible comment section. Also, shitty editorialised titles (which by the way usually aren't even by the author) like these were not as prevalent without massive scrutiny.
There is a tad bit of difference between caring about an opinion and tolerating one. Obama's opinions on AI are unqualified pop culture nonsense. They wouldn't be relevant in an actual discussion that would cite relevant technical, economical and philosophical aspects of AI as points.
If you mean by "perfectly legal" a fair use claim, then could you please explain how a commercial for-profit company using the works, sometimes echoing verbatim results, is infringing on the copyrights in a fair use manner?
My Lemmy experience improved by a considerable amount once I blocked that instance, and I have been on here for a good while without blocking any instance. They really need to get their shit together.
I understand the sentiment, but I do not come to the same conclusion that of increasing accessibility via offering more features in unfree proprietary software. The intended consequences of this were publicised by US Justice Department in their uncovering of Microsoft's memo labelled Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish which outlines how this eventually leads to less, not more, accessibility.
That aside, Microsoft Windows already supported ZIP which is an open standard. The addition of RAR, which is a proprietary unfree standard, is actually less open.
I am a person from an Arab and Muslim country. This logic is insane and downright dangerous. You don't know what you are getting yourself into. Read about it.
Right, because the only alternative to using spaghetti old code is making your own, not using one of the many actively maintained free software.
Among many others you'd easily find if you give up on the hivemind of taking the most popular approach.
Absolutely worth the downvotes. It is a paragraph worth of nothing. Literally nothing of value or relevance added to the thread.
Thanks, ChatGPT.
Pretty sure the Californian authority is not a copper DSL religious cult. If you actually read the article, the regulations they are citing are built for vulnerable communities to protect them from for-profit utility providers from cutting them off by shutting down old but only available way to provide internet to the people.
Wireless is not a fix-all solution, and can be unreliable and bandwidth limited for dense areas.
This message is sent to you by someone whose utility provider decided to do exactly what you wish and now is stuck with wireless towers that completely go down if there's any heightened usage (tourism, people moving in, and so on) or pretty much randomly (and since the infrastructure is not built yet, the company's nearest branch is nowhere near me), if you move too quickly, go to a room the tower doesn't properly reach (yes can be fixed, but now the burden of cost is on the person not the company), and many more issues that arise when 'wireless towers' are provided instead of actual internet cables that might be slower, older and more expensive for the provider but much more reliable, stable and actually working most of the time.