60 karma · joined April 15, 2024
Or does it make sense to put a disclaimer on there, not just from a legal perspective, but to actively discourage those users who haven't made up their mind already? While people absolutely can use their software for pirating content—which is in open debate about the ethics—I've known very few individuals who torrent to actually profit from others material, but I know of plenty anti-piracy advocates who use stolen content for profit.
I've also known bucketloads of people that have paid $50+ for a movie in the theater or $10+ for a rental at home, only realize how badly they were duped by the industry to give money for something that was practically garbage, which they ended up not watching anyway yet the purchase was nonrefundable, which unfortunately happens several times because of all the fake interest in something actually being advertising, which appeals to their desire to fit in. It is often very exploitative.
I've also known a descent amount of people that discovered content they found joy in by torrenting, maybe at the time being depressed... struggling to get out of bed or find inspiration, and as a result improved their condition to become pretty big supporters of those who made that content later on, which they would then gladly pay for thereafter.
Seriously, any actual good artist I've known usually would be the first to encourage someone to pirate their content because they understand that the people that like it will support them, and the people that don't... they have no desire to exploit them.
Like you can claim people shouldn't shoot up heroine, while still giving them clean needles if they're still going to do it.
Basically, do what we say or expect us to have our corporate sponsors write bad press about your security.
I'm not saying security is about perfection, but encouraging people to curl something to the shell with sudo is poor practice. I get that it is a newer piece of software, so I am forgiving. But getting it packaged into Homebrew, WinGet, Nix, etc. is more ideal. Some of them may verify a signed package, ensure reproducible builds, track changes for proper uninstalls, etc.
More like they have their hands in creating the current judiciary climate. Kind of hard to file suit against someone who is intertwined with the agencies that would investigate them.
Statistically, there has been a lot less failed executions from firing squads, but is it cause it is more predictable, or because there have been issues obtaining drugs for lethal injection, lack of medical professionals willing to assist, lack of training, etc. Are there vast differences in statistics, even among the states that have death penalties? If so, then isn't saying it is "safer" overly broad, when in fact it depends which states you're referring to?
The Revolutionary plan still only offers 3 custom domains. Furthermore, SimpleLogin provides unlimited aliases (custom domain or not) for $4/mo & unlimited custom domains. So SimpleLogin still appears to be more competitively priced overall.
Now, if Google suddenly gets a spike in negative reviews, and a lot of them are from Chrome-connected accounts where they can see they've never downloaded that extension, or a lot of them appear to be from users who never used it, then they may have reason to remove or not weight those reviews the same. Just like where an establishment has built up a good reputation, and then something unpopular happens on camera and goes viral & so a bunch of people that have never been there flood the reviews.
What seems most likely to me is that Honey is still a rather popular extension, that what might bother you or the techcentric groups you follow doesn't really matter to a vast majority of users. It may be unfortunate, especially if people are getting misled or Honey is engaged in corruption. If people cared about corruption companies like Comcast/Xfinity would be non-existent IMO. Unfortunately they don't. If people want Google to ban/unfeature Honey, then wouldn't it be better to have a court judgement declaring Honey broke the law, rather than doing it just because it was unpopular to a much smaller group of users than the ones that thought Honey was the greatest cause their favorite influencer told them it was?
First result with simple command. I went from KeePassXC to `pass` & back to KeePassXC. But I question the integrity and/or motive of people like you.
What many people don't get between WASM & containers is that containers don't need software developers to make changes to support containers. WASM however relies on software developers to make changes to their apps. Otherwise, you have to emulate an entire architecture in WASM which doesn't perform well. It is the difference between VMs, which emulates physical hardware & containers which doesn't need to emulate the hardware cause it provides the sandboxing using kernel features.