mox @ mox @lemmy.sdf.org

Posts

269

Comments

1,738

Joined

1 yr. ago

My guess: Because it's both FRee and frEAkish (atypical) compared to commercial uniX.

Or do something like this, which is simpler, easier on your SSD, and doesn't require installing git:

        find ~/.config -mmin -3


  

That finds files under the .config directory that were modified less than 3 minutes ago.

FWIW, I think Steam accepts addy.io addresses.

You might also write Valve a letter politely explaining how this policy is hostile to customers who wish to maintain some level of privacy and spam protection. If enough people complain, over time, they might be taken seriously.

Sony used to make compact variants of their flagship Xperia phones. Good specs. Good battery life. Good camera. Good display. Good sound. Good reception. Headphone jack. SD card slot. Unlockable bootloader, so they could be de-googled.

Sadly, the "compact" models grew slightly larger with each model year, and even a not-so-compact one hasn't been released in a while.

TIL someone still uses NoScript.

Look for an instance with these qualities:

• Does not use Cloudflare or any other large content delivery network. Instances that use thse allow the CDN to monitor everything your read and write on Lemmy, which can reveal a lot about you even if you haven't used your real name. Cloudflare can then correlate that information with your other browsing habits, and possibly your real identity, because they operate as a middleman for a huge number of popular web sites.
• Maintains a sizable local image cache. Images served from other instances instead of your local one can be abused by remote parties to track what is viewed on Lemmy with your IP address (and sometimes your browser signature). Alternatively, you could block off-site images using a browser extension, but that would mean not getting to see as many pictures.

Here's where they quietly removed the promise from their FAQ:

https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b61939b7f4310eb80c5470e#diff-a24e74e4595fa85440a2f4e7e5dcfe68aba6e1e593aef05a2d35581a91423847

*Bar Keepers Friend

There isn't a browser suitable to replace Firefox in the official Debian apt repos.

However, as far as I can tell, Mozilla's recent Terms of Use apply only to the Firefox builds downloaded from Mozilla, not to the built-from-source versions that you get from the Debian archive using apt.

You can use the Debian build under the terms of the Mozilla Public License. Read /usr/share/doc/firefox-esr/copyright for details.

To me, Nvidia isn't worth the trouble on Linux unless you have specific (non-gaming) needs that can't be met with AMD or Intel hardware.

With this in mind, I kept using my last Nvidia card until it needed replacing, and then switched to AMD. Seems like that might make sense for you, too.

Have they restored this recently removed promise to their FAQ yet?

https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b61939b7f4310eb80c5470e#diff-a24e74e4595fa85440a2f4e7e5dcfe68aba6e1e593aef05a2d35581a91423847

But without it, your post very much was just another person using the word as though it was fine to say and weird that people wouldn’t say it.

No, that's something that came entirely from you. My comment merely pointed out a failure of the article to say what it was talking about.

It's important to be careful when communicating with others about issues that feed strong emotions in us. It's all too easy to project meaning that isn't there, and mistakenly vilify someone based on our own biases.

And with it being at -5 when I posted, I wasn’t the only one that read it that way.

Yes, and at least some of that was surely due to the influence of your comment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect

You even felt you needed to correct it after I left.

That's faulty reasoning. What I added was not a correction, but an explicit statement of what should have been obvious to a reader who wasn't looking for a quarrel. In other words, I went the extra mile to do the reader's job for them. My addendum doesn't imply fault in the original.

I did this only because I'm familiar with the way misguided replies can lead to toxic snowballs on web forums, and I noticed that your comment had the potential to start one.

In retrospect, with the added context, I can see what you originally meant.

A simple "I'm sorry for mistakenly chiding you" would have sufficed here. Good day.

As my post would have referred to your first sentence absent the second.

There was never a point where my comment contained the first sentence absent the second.

And you’ll notice everyone read your post the way I did before you edited it. When I came along, you had -5.

Bandwagoning is very common on web forums. People are easily influenced by the first reply they see, and will often click a vote button before thinking about what was actually written.

The paragraph I added was to try to guide people away from that bad habit once the bandwagoning had already started. It does not imply fault in my original comment.

When I am the listener or reader, any time my first impression of a comment is negative, I consider it my responsibility to stop and consider other meanings before crying foul. That's the only way we can avoid miscommunication, after all, since it's not possible for a speaker or author to predict every potential misinterpretation, and the burden of avoiding it should not be entirely on them. I wish more people would do the same.

They edited their post to be completely different from when I replied.

No, I did not. I added a second paragraph to address your obvious misinterpretation.

The first paragraph is what you replied to, and remains intact. You could have tried to understand it on its own, but instead you chose to look for an excuse to chide a stranger. That was unkind, unwarranted, and unnecessary.

The question asked by throwback3090@lemmy.nz stands.

The edit to my comment merely added the second paragraph, which explicitly spells out what should have been obvious to anyone with basic reading comprehension skills, or failing those, at least a modicum of simple human kindness.

It takes a bit of reading into SPF, DMARC, DKIM etc.,

That alone is often (usually?) not enough. Since many IP addresses are already blackholed before you even set up a mail server on one, there is also the slow and sometimes painful process of:

• Figuring out by trial-and-error which recipients are not receiving mail from you (or are receiving it directly into their spam folders).
• Figuring out which email filtering services are used by those recipients' mail providers.
• Figuring out how to contact those filtering services.
• Figuring out what process each filtering service uses for requesting removal from their blacklists (or adding to their whitelists).
• Navigating each of those processes.
• Submitting documentation of having done so.
• Waiting and hoping for the filtering services accept your request and start allowing mail from you.

...and then starting all over again every so often, whenever a filtering service changes their configs or a new one appears.

It can be done, and you might get lucky, but it often requires tenacity and a lot of patience.

Keeping the other branches of government in check is point of the US Congress.

So far, this Congress has enjoyed extraordinarily high quality of life (funded by taxpayers) for relatively easy work.

They have also played a big part in allowing things to progress to this point.

Now it's time for them to step up and do their fucking jobs.

If they feel threatened, then I would suggest they get the help of a government agency equipped to protect them. If that's not enough, they have plenty of money to hire supplementary guards.

Related:

https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-workers-shared-sensitive-images-recorded-by-customer-cars-2023-04-06/

Useless headline. The R-word is apparently "retarded".

I spell it out here because this isn't mentioned at all in the article. Figuring out what it was talking about required finding and reading text that was embedded in an image on xcom.

The one good thing I can say about this new Terms of Use document is that it's not ridiculously long.

When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.

This language seems excessively broad, like it could be interpreted to allow Firefox to send that information to Mozilla instead of just passing it to the sites we intend to have it. Why else would they need us to grant them a license to it?

Is there a lawyer in the house?

Every once in a while, Mozilla may decide to update these Terms. We will post the updated Terms online. We will take your continued use of Firefox as acceptance of such changes. We will post an effective date at the top of this page to make it clear when we made our most recent update.

This notion that it's okay to unilaterally change the terms of a license, and impose those changes upon people without explicit agreement, is absurd. Moreover, it is not remotely reasonable to expect people to spend their lives constantly checking the posted licenses of all the software they use to see if any of them has changed.

I am disappointed in Mozilla here.