jimjimwii

You largely have bill gates to thank. Code is math and anyone who insists otherwise is a personof questionable morals, intelligence, or both.

Given what they choose to ship with their phones in some regions, id say that Samsung absolutely doesn't care about the security of their customers of they can get away with it.

I think the classic example is copyright and hacking offences, of which there are many many examples. Legal in a person's home country, very illegal in the US (unless you are a big corporation, of course).

I am not exaggerating when i say i completely stopped using google for searches that google might take offence to. Serial numbers, business phone numbers, and of course books and papers all ho through real search engines. Currently, those are yandex as my main goto with brave as a backup.

I couldn't care less what google does because i don't use it.

Its a foot in the door. If you dont slam the door shut quickly, you'll find yourself thrown out of your house and locked out (remember what android's safety net was when it got introduced and look at ehat it has become now)

Any kind of restriction, no matter how trevally exploitable will become legally and technically insurmountable if given time to metastasize.

I really want to buy a pebble. Can you please reconsider offering the watch via retailers when it becomes financially viable?

My anecdote: I've been using rootless podman on Ubuntu in production environments in multiple organizations (both startup and enterprise) for years without encountering a single issue related to podman itself.

I'm sure what you wrote here is true but i cant fathom how. Maybe its a rh specific issue? (Like how ubuntu breaks rootless bwrap by default)

That's how I've always done it. Why would anyone do it any other way? Genuine question.

This is how its done in many non western societies: if you allege something, you better have the receipts to back it up or face similar consequences.

This is what i settled on as well. I maintain a side project that is completely legal and above board but i refuse to go through the nonsense i was forced to go through the last time i had to integrate with a credit card payment gateway (another side project that went belly up).

If someone wants to buy something from me badly enough, they'll figure out how to get some bitcoin.

I don't have the time and energy to deal with their arbitrary bullshit anymore.

Had you posted this comment in the early 90s about linux instead of local models, it would have made about the same amount of sense but aged just as poorly as this comment will.

I'll remain here happily using 2.something tokens / second model.

Those same users will be tricked into downloading the "secure bowser" which has these tools. This is a nonsensical argument.

To this day, firefox is still the only browser that prevents its users from running custom extensions without Mozilla's blessing, likely motivated by the same garbage argument.

I have very little hope for Mozilla at this point and sincerely hope that they fail soon so that better open source browsers can take its place.

Repeal and outlaw drm. It was a mistake that violates everyone's constitutional rights.

Agreed. I was surprised of how bad it was compared to their other apps (their calendar app). The recordings are faint/muted and it seems to have reliability issues.

Luckily there are quality options to choose from on fdroid.

That is more or less what i did with my parents, but this approach is still susceptible to active mitm attacks.

2 factor authentication through a secure app or a trusted family member is probably also needed though i haven't tackled this part with them yet.

For me it's the R1 fiasco and their dishonesty. How anyone can continue to trust a project that brazenly mislead their users to such an extent just to cash in on the hype is beyond me.

I guess ill just connect my phone to a charger and record the screen then. What is the threat model that Microsoft hopes to thwart with this nonsense?

I'm surprised that they're doing this now, with how strained international relations are. I'm sure their timing will help motivate serious non-us customers to look at linux for desktop use.

Google is not a company I would want to work for.

The analog hole. As long as human eyes can perceive the video, there will always be a way to preserve it, even if we need to fall back to analog (we wont, probably).

The issue is indemnification, not liability. I do not have the funds to defend Mozilla and their partners if someone decides to sue them because they don't like how i use their software.

I assume not since i never agreed to such a terms and only learned about them yesterday. How on earth did we get to a point of hidden privacy policies on desktop open source software...

That's nice and all, but most people are worried about the other "rights" this would grant them and their partners. (What they can vs what they say they will)

> You agree to indemnify and hold Mozilla and its affiliates harmless for any liability or claim from your use of Firefox, to the extent permitted by applicable law.

Yikes. Good thing i was never informed or agreed to this nonsense.

I may be misremembering but wasn't it already possible to export go functions to js before go 1.24? I distinctly remember being able to call exported go functions in js without issues in prior. It would be really helpful if someone could explain to me how the new wasi niceties improve on what we had before (beyond supporting more types accross the ffi)?

Second question: it was possible for me to extract strings and other complex types from the wasm module's instance memory by casting pointers to integers, returning those integers to js, then using those values as an offset. If the binary representation of my types is guaranteed to be stable in go, is this method of passing pointers to js still viable for wasm modules produced when passing goos=wasip1?

They could have only leached and refrained from sharing any part of copyrighted data. If i were to commit something as risky as this, that is what i would do.

We're talking past each other at this point. I believe both our positions have been adequately presented. Cheers.

Terminology exists for a reason. Doubly so for well-established terms of art that pertain to licensing and contract law.

They could have used "open wights" which would have conveyed the company's desired intent just as well as "open source", but without the ambiguity. They deliberately chose to misuse a well established term instead.

I applaud and thank deepseek for opening their weights, but i absolutely condemn them and others (e.g Facebook) for their deliberate and continued misuse of the term. I and others like me will continue to raise this point as long as we are active in this field, so expect to see this criticism for decades.

Hopefully one of these companies losses a lawsuit due to these shenanigans. Perhaps then they wouldn't misuse these terms so brazenly.

Yep, like how browsers show users urls in their location bars.

What is the status of federation support? I imagine cross-instance pull requests and bug reports would make collaboration effortless.