I wonder what the reaction will be from the companies hiring Google’s advertising services. On the one hand, Google is clearly ensuring that they get as much money out of the deal as possible, but it also must lead to more people seeing the advertised brand, likely even encouraging it’s sales. The author suggests that this is a bad deal for companies working with Google, as well as Google’s users, but I can’t help but think that the companies purchasing ads from Google are coming out ahead on this one.

You should consider actually reading the posts you are replying to.

When the bad actor in question in a military or government organization, one of the realities of the modern world is that they will use your code whether you like it or not. They aren’t going to stop because you use a license that prohibits them using it, if they deem it something that is useful enough. They’ll just ignore your complaints and hide any wrongdoing long enough for you to go away.

If you publish FOSS, you are relinquishing a lot of control of how that software is used. A license that says “don’t use this in bombs” only works if all parties are acting in good faith, and I don’t think we can rely on millitaries playing nice if there’s an advantage to be had.

September 12th for the new iPhone.

But to know for sure we’d need statistics which we don’t have.

Precisely my point.

It’s basically just a really elaborate angry comment on a SanDisk SSD. Sucks that you lots your data, but it’s a single failure that could happen to basically any drive. Back up what you care about. Absolute waste of time ‘article.’

Only appreciating the big flashy outcomes of science is exactly how you end up with no science funding. Iterating and improving something is important work that should be applauded.

Honest to god doublethink right here.

Yes I’ve seen this bug as well. Very strange, and definitely feels like a vulnerability of some sort.

There’s a massive difference between one’s intentions and the consequences of one’s actions. They are only talking about their intentions, while the rest of the community is bringing up the inevitable consequences.

When we all started using Chrome to get away from Microsoft’s web stewardship that arose from everyone using IE.

it’s basically the server that decides if it trusts the judgment of the client or not. Can’t wait to see that cat-and-mouse game going on

This is partially correct. The server will check that you have a valid token issued by a trusted third party, who will almost certainly be Google, Microsoft, or Apple. When you connect to the web page, your browser will give this token to the server and say “hey look I’m legit.” The token will have enough information on it to identify that it is relevant (being provided by a client that matches the hardware it is meant to verify) as well as a cryptographic signature that verifies it is in fact from the trusted third party. So it’s less the server trusting the judgement of the client than it is the server trusting the judgement of whatever third party is attesting to your system.

$65CAD for 300Mbit fiber. Just clocked it with a speed test at 350/480, which is weird. I don’t really trust any speed tests though. Worst part is that we reliably lose connection every time it rains heavily. Brought it up with the ISP and they have just blown me off so far.

The problem is that Microsoft is in a position to push Teams in an unfair way. They bundle it with other software that their clients will already be using, thus making it the most convenient choice. Convenience is a huge deciding factor in what an organization adopts, since supporting a single software bundle can be much easier than many disparate ones. Leveraging your existing market share in an unrelated domain to edge out competitors in another is exactly why antitrust legislation exists.

Totally proper use of the law.

It baffles me that companies the size of Microsoft can’t nail UX. They have nigh-unlimited resources and just can’t get software to work well in an environment that they themselves designed. I get that they will put the minimum amount of work into a product, so long as it’s achieving it’s goals, but companies this size have zero excuses for an app that doesn’t work flawlessly.

This is heavily influenced by choice of DE. Some of them really do have all their options well laid out in the system settings, but others rely entirely on config files. I have little experience with GNOME, but with KDE I was able to customize my experience very heavily using only the system settings by just playing around in the GUI. Meanwhile, on another machine running Hyprland, I have had to read a lot of documentation in order to customize it, but the available options are relatively more powerful than the KDE setup.

Neither of these methods are more right than the other, but one is absolutely more new-user friendly, assuming they do not want to simply accept the defaults.

This is harder than it first appears. Microsoft actually subsidizes vendors for selling machines with Windows installed. So these cheap laptops would actually be a bit more expensive without the Windows installation.

Dark Reader is a true game changer plugin.

Yes, having state-run instances of federated social media would be an excellent way to both legitimize the fediverse and remove some of the control that these mega-corporations have. There’s no reason why privately- or corporate-run instances could not exist alongside these instances, and would still serve to combat potential state or corporate censorship.

This may be the most significant result of the API debacle. Without proper tools to stop bots, the site will quickly become a nearly unusable cesspool. This is the kind of thing that will actually affect users in the long run. When site usability degrades, people will have even more reasons to jump ship.