[-] bloup@lemmy.sdf.org 130 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

When you organize a nonprofit, you dedicate it to the public benefit. it’s not supposed to ever have owners, everything it does it supposed to be for me and you. as far as I’m concerned, this is a multi billion dollar larceny against the general public and we really need better laws that preserve our nonprofit institutions. Just even trying to plan this out is a crime against humanity

[-] bloup@lemmy.sdf.org 37 points 1 month ago

why do you think the Mozilla corporation losing 86% of their revenue wouldn’t hurt the Firefox browser?

[-] bloup@lemmy.sdf.org 112 points 6 months ago

It turns out that, just like fancy graphics, not constantly trying to empty your customers pockets actually represents some kind of economic value. The ironic thing is so many of these old games were literally designed to steal your quarters.

[-] bloup@lemmy.sdf.org 24 points 6 months ago

It’s gotta be deadbeat don

[-] bloup@lemmy.sdf.org 31 points 6 months ago

I agree with the essence of your point but personally I’d never use the word “wrong”, only incomplete. Seems weird to call Newton’s laws “wrong” when the only reason that we are willing to accept GR is that it reduces to Newton.

[-] bloup@lemmy.sdf.org 21 points 7 months ago

I have to say, I think the article actually does address what you’re saying, in particular here:

There are a couple of reasons as to why this is so surprising. Firstly, the Trust & Safety aspect: a few months ago, several Lemmy servers were absolutely hammered with CSAM, to the point that communities shut down and several servers were forced to defederate from one another or shut down themselves.

Simply put, the existing moderation tooling is not adequate for removing illegal content from servers. It’s bad enough to have to jump through hoops dealing with local content, but when it comes to federated data, it’s a whole other ball game.

The second, equally important aspect is one of user consent. If a user accidentally uploads a sensitive image, or wants to wipe their account off of a server, the instance should make an effort to comply with their wishes. Federated deletions fail sometimes, but an earnest attempt to remove content from a local server should be trivial, and attempting to perform a remote delete is better than nothing.

I also just want to point out that the knife cuts both ways. Yes, it’s impossible to guarantee nodes you’re federating with aren’t just ignoring remote delete requests. But, there is a benefit to acting in good faith that I think is easy to infer from the CSAM material example the article presents.

[-] bloup@lemmy.sdf.org 37 points 10 months ago

I hate this article because of the title. I clicked this honestly because I was expecting to learn something outrageous about the pricing, but Microsoft hasn’t even announced it yet, just that it’s not going to be free. The journalist here could have just wrote in the title that it’s going to cost money, and left it at that. If they wanted to do a real good job, within the article they could even share what the Windows 7 version of the program cost people to help give a sense for what we should expect. But they didn’t even do that.

Anyway, here’s the latest information from Microsoft:

https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/windows-it-pro-blog/plan-for-windows-10-eos-with-windows-11-windows-365-and-esu/ba-p/4000414

[-] bloup@lemmy.sdf.org 19 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

“Could” as if there’s a possibility it will respect your privacy lmfao

[-] bloup@lemmy.sdf.org 40 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Don’t forget that when someone is talking about the average American “owning stocks” what they really mean is “has a retirement account that works in a way they don’t fully understand, which includes securities such as stocks, that they are not legally allowed to touch until they are 60”.

Anyone who tries to insinuate that the way average Americans “own stocks” is in any manner comparable to the way the wealthiest do, should honestly literally be put in the stocks where commoners can hurl tomatoes at them.

[-] bloup@lemmy.sdf.org 31 points 10 months ago

I mean I never told you not to rename them lmfao. You just said “I can’t stand the titles on torrents” like people just made these really long filenames for shits and giggles. Also lots of torrent sites will feature several different kinds of rips. It’s not very convenient on the back end to have all rips of the same movie have the same file name.

Also “calm down”? Idk I thought I gave a pretty chill explanation of why things are the way they are but sorry if it didn’t come across that way.

[-] bloup@lemmy.sdf.org 58 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

“Titles”? It’s not a title, it’s a file name that contains a lot of details about the rip. In the post’s example it tells you that it’s the movie Split, ripped from blu ray, in 1080p, with audio tracks in Italian and English, and encoded in x265. You probably would hate a lot more not being able to tell the difference between split.mp4 recorded on my cellphone in the movie theater and split.mp4 in ultra hd 4k ripped straight from Netflix.

[-] bloup@lemmy.sdf.org 18 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I only enable telemetry for software provided by nonprofit organizations that are legally obligated to publish detailed financial records. Never give anyone that reserves the right to sell you out any of the benefit of your data for free.

564
submitted 10 months ago by bloup@lemmy.sdf.org to c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world
view more: next ›

bloup

joined 11 months ago