2,691 karma · joined February 3, 2025
It works really well, the one downside is that vscode extensions are pretty intrusive. They expect system provided SDKs. So you then have to install the SDKs in the Flatpak container so you have them. If vscode extensions were reasonable and somewhat sandboxed that wouldn't be a concern.
All that is to say, Flatpak works well for this purpose too.
But your POS system where you enter in orders? That's Linux. And guess what - it just works, it chugs along and does its thing.
There's no reason that doctors offices couldn't use software that utilizes Linux. And to pretend that windows is low maintenance? Tsk tsk, windows is a time bomb.
I run Debian stable, and it's not immutable, but it is very unchanging. I don't worry much about system libraries and tooling.
The downside to that is that then userland application are out of date - in enters Flatpak. I run most GUI applications in flatpak. This has a lot of benefits. They're containerized, so they maintain their own libraries. They can be bleeding edge but I don't have to worry about it affecting system packages. I also get much simpler control - no fiddling with apparmor, the built-in Flatpak permission system is powerful enough.
The blind spot then is CLI apps and tooling. Usually it doesn't matter too much being bound to system packages, but if it really does, I can always containerize those too. I only do it for my PHP dev environment.
Look around you. Is this really the US you want to be living in? Are you really so pathetic as to be proud of this?
What kind of people do we want to be? Do we really want to be cruel cunts and wave around a "well it's technically legal!!1!" flag? Is that who YOU want to be? Is that how the US should treat allies which invest billions into our economy?
Its not misinformation vs the governments word. Its misinformation vs populist pseudo-fascist misinformation.
If the government is telling you or us that these workers did not have valid visas, that probably means that at least some definitely did have valid visas.
Can we do that ethically? No. Of course not. The implementation must necessarily require death and theft.
Age verification is a similar problem. I support the idea of minors not accessing bad data. Okay, cool.
Is there an ethical way to implement that? No, of course not. It would require extreme surveillance and said surveillance would necessarily be used for evil.
I mean, imagine this. New law: children can never smoke law. Great! 100% support! Now you must upload a video of you smoking every time you smoke so the government knows a child isn't smoking. Uh... Not great, very bad.
Its all about how you ask the question: "do you support children never smoking" => 100% support. "Do you support requiring video uploads to the government of every time you smoke" => 0% support.
We're actually asking the same question, it's just a matter of how favorably we show the issue.
Like, breaking encryption is just not possible if the encryption is set using a proper algorithm. Governments try, and they try to pass laws, but it's literally impossible. No amount of political will can change that. Ultimately I can write an encryption algorithm or use GPG or something and nobody on Earth, no matter how motivated or how rich, can read what I encrypted, provided I do not let out the key. If I just keep the password in my head, it's impossible.
So, until we invent technology to extract secrets from a human brain, you cannot universally break encryption. Its just not possible. Doesn't matter if 7 billion people worldwide vote for that. Doesn't matter if Elon Musk wants it. Doesn't matter if the FBI, CIA, and the NSA all work together.
A lot of people just don't understand what privilege is. Who has more upward mobility - an impoverished black person, or an impoverished white person? Who is more likely to face systemic factors that influence poverty and outcomes - black people or white people?
And before I hear "well not everything is about race!!1!" Uh, the US has a long history of systemic racism that does continue to this day.
Obviously if you just integrated a few decades ago you're not going to just magically have equal outcomes. People don't move like that, systems are sticky, and the US isn't evenly distributed.
And, of course, race is correlated tightly with culture and with average income and levels of poverty.
No, you can't just ignore race. Well you can, if that's easier for you, but it's dishonest and incomplete.
And, because I know it's coming: yes I'm white, no I don't have white guilt, I just think about the world we live in. Its easy not to think about things. I prefer thinking about things.
Lol, not bending over and letting whoever the fuck run whatever the fuck programs on my computer is an "implementation detail".
> You should just accept that you are being greedy and you will block ads because you don't care if creators make money from ads and want to prioritize having an ad free experience.
This is so, so obviously wrong it's actually frustrating I have to reply to this level of rhetoric.
Once again, I am not your accountant. It is not my responsibility to make sure your business model makes sense.
I don't have the time to babysit and hand hold every corporation in my life and make sure their business model makes sense. I just don't, and it's not my responsibility.
If your business model relies solely on me allowing you to run potential malware on my computer, then that is YOUR problem. Not mine. Figure it out, or don't. Youre always allowed to go bankrupt. Not every business model is viable.
You are not entitled to a viable business model. You are not God. If your business model doesn't work, then you lose. Too bad, so sad, not my fucking problem.
And on the topic of money: running ads on my computer is a computer system security problem.
The FBI recommends running an aggressive ad blocker. The reality is most ads are basically malware and often literally malware. They can be phishing, linking to malicious sites. They can be deceptive. They can be spyware, collecting information about my computer, identity, or web browsing activity.
Google, Meta, et. all have demonstrated they simply do not take adequate steps to prevent malicious advertisement payloads.
You do not have a god-given right to run software on my computer, but you CERTAINLY don't have a god-given right to run malware on my computer.
If you disagree, take it up with the FBI, I don't care.
Its like you've never lived in America.
Obviously white people are extremely privileged and also have a different culture. Keep in mind that schools in predominantly black areas are typically significantly less funded than those in white areas.
Completely legal protests are met with unreasonable searches, seizures, and even violence all the time in the US. We saw it all the time with BLM. Yes, they need to worry about that.
The fourth amendment: unreasonable searches and seizures. This is an unreasonable search.
Also, protests aren't civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is civil disobedience. Protests are explicitly protected by the first amendment and you can protest all day long.
Just point granny to the super secure Play Store and have her download anydesk and boom, now you remote control her entire phone. And you didn't even need to hire a development team to do it.
I'm not wanting anything, I'm telling you literally they are playing by my rules.
They are requesting to run scripts on my computer. It is my computer. If I say no, then the answer is no.
This is merely a request from them. I can abide, and I often will, but I have absolutely no moral, technical, or legal obligation to do so.
> I's also like stealing a TV from Costco.
No, because that's illegal.
You are REQUESTING to run advertisement scripts on my computer. I can deny that request.
If you don't like that, then don't allow me access. It is my responsibility, solely, to decide what scripts are running on my computer.
If Google asked you to download heartbleed and run it, you wouldn't do it, would you? Great, so you understand the concept.
The disconnect here is you believe I am entitled. And I am - I am entitled to deciding what runs on my computer.
You are not entitled to run arbitrary code on my computer because your business model requires it. I'm not your accountant, figure it out.
If anything, ads steal from YOU. They take your time and attempt to get you to part with your money.
You're not obligated to support a business model based on theft, if you want to consider it that. You're not obligated to support any business model.
If it's allowed, then go for it. They can always switch to another business model.
The reality is that ads are the primary vehicle for malicious content, whether it be malware, scams, or deception, on the web.
Google, as well as Meta, has demonstrated they do not take adequate measure to block said malicious content. This can lead to tangible real effects, such as getting scammed and losing your life savings.
Therefore, every web user should use a strict ad blocker per FBI recommendations. This is no longer a business question or a free-speech question, it is a computer system security question.
Is coca cola then a monopoly on soft drinks? I would say obviously yes.
This is the situation the current internet and applications are in. They only service users who utilize Google in some type of way, for the majority of apps.
Its deceptive to say "well it's just that one bank". No, that one bank is an example. That's not the breadth of it, and we both know that.
Like, clanker is the equivalent of a racial slur but for robots. The reason it works and is funny is because we already know what racial slurs are and have a contexr for it.
If racial slurs didn't exist, neither would clanker.
You have to actually think about the world we live in and why things are the way they are. Its a easy to say "just cuz lol", but we're engineers. Nothing happens "just cuz". No, there's a reason.
You're still just blindly trusting this is the case. You can't verify the encryption or any of the code.
It would be trivial to actually encrypt the message and send it out and then store an unecrypted version locally and quietly exfiltrate it later.
They have to already be storing an unecrypted version locally, because you can see the messages. So unless your analyzing packets on the scale of months or years, you cannot possibly know that it isn't being exfiltrate at some point.
Take it a step further: put the extiltration behind a flag, and then when the NSA asks, turn on the flag for that person. Security researchers will never find it.
Clearly, you are underestimating the intelligence and capabilities of the US government. They have a lot of money. Like... A lot of money.
The problem is similar to that of government efforts to ban encryption: if you have a backdoor, everyone has a backdoor.
If Meta is collecting huge amount of user info like candy (they are) and using it for business purposes (they are), then necessarily those employees implementing those business purposes can do that, too.
You can make them pinky promise not to. That doesn't do anything.
Meta has a similar problem with stalking via Ring camera. You allow and store live feeds of every Ring camera? News flash: your employees can, too! They're gonna use that to violate your customers!
Their software is running on my computer. I decide what scripts I want or don't, and I can and will block whatever the fuck with impunity.
If they can't prevent that, or it's too expensive, or they don't care, that's not my problem. That's a business problem. Its not my business. I don't care.
Its like getting a free sample at Costco and then taking it home and throwing it away. That's my right. I can do that if I want.
If you want to run software on my computer, you play by my rules. That means an ad blocker. If you don't like that then figure it out. I'm not gonna figure it out for you.
If your business model is stupid, that's not my business. I don't run your accounting department, I'm not your CFO.
Figure it out, or don't. I don't have the time to handhold every corporation I interact with and make sure they're getting their money. They are not babies, and I am not their father.
Mr Krabs voice: money!
No but seriously, if the FBI is telling you to use an ad blocker, use a fucking ad blocker.
My workplace doesn't allow ad blockers for security. Except ads are a MUCH bigger security concern and everyone knows it.
I'm so sick and tired of everyone playing dumb and acting like it's fine. No, it's not fine. Its not okay that Google is serving you a phishing ad that drains your bank account. They should be held liable. Why is everyone acting like their balls have been chopped off?
Do something about it. Minimum is run an aggressive ad blocker. MINIMUM!
I don't need alternative app stores to download malware and scams, that play store is full of that. And it's advertised front and center.
At what point do we just call you people hopelessly naive and move on?
Microsoft? Spying on you? Inconceivable!
The US government? Spying on you through US companies? Inconceivable!
Nevermind that we have hundreds of known examples of the US government approaching Google or microsoft and forcing their hand in wiretapping their systems. And nevermind there was once a point in time where all internet traffic in the US was wiretapped. And nevermind that Microsoft's privacy policy, which YOU SIGN, outright says they will spy on you.