DEADMINCE

Well, my local directory is `~/local`. So that's not where I want it.

You can just move it after. .local is different from local so there is no clash.

There's good reason you might not want that behavior, and no reason to enforce it. Booting an alternate OS doesn't interrupt Windows update operations.

I think Windows even does this now.

Why? What advantage is there for Windows to do this?

I love Linux, but it would not exist without corporate sponsors.

Of course it would, for it already did. It might not be as polished, and there would be more issues with hardware, but it would certainly still exist, and even thrive. Because enough people want it and can put in the manpower to create it.

but there's really no possibility a social media platform (or the internet at-large) could adopt a similar strategy.

By decentralizing it could.

Hosting is expensive

Decentralizing would work around that.

Blind authoritarianism is ironically one of it's strongest defenses.

The strongest defense is GPL, because if a company tried to do that then the same thing that happened with nginx would happen.

The decentralized internet, the blockchain, the darkweb and I2P all need someone to pay for hosting costs.

With a properly designed protocol these costs would be neglibile.

Just to be clear, this is signing for validation

Yup. I was just referencing wanting to obtain keys from the TPM to decrypt a partition. This is useful for me to have the following setup:

- Laptop turned on, no keys pressed, boots into super locked down guest OS.

- Laptop turned on, certain key pressed within 2 seconds, boot into 'hidden' OS.

- In both cases, HDD is encrypted, decrypted automatically via retrieving keys stored in the TPM. This means the harddrive cannot be read outside of that particular laptop, unless keys are extracted from the TPM.

- Bootloader signed with own key, any and all existing keys wiped, so laptop cannot be booted with any external OS.

How would I recreate that setup with nmbl?

That's a good link by the way, thanks - saved.

Man that's cool. Not for me personally as I need a display and not glasses, but it's cool we have so much computer power in such portable formats now.

I love that we have pretty powerful laptops with 20 hours of battery that only weigh a pound or so. I remember 20 years ago lugging around a 2kh brick with only 2 hours of battery.

I think we probably agree with each other. Even with UBI, I do think it makes sense to have some degree of copyright. Just to allow creatives room to breath and tell stories they want to tell without their narratives by more popular forks. That argument is a different issue altogether, though, I think, and we are nowhere near being in a context where we need to figure it out.

I do think UBI should be a minimum, and people should still receive compensation for work they produce that people enjoy. Just not exclusive rights and perpetual royalties and all this nonsense.

Infiltrate, sure, but not control.

I agree that would be fantastic, but I would like something with protection against interference baked into the design, rather than having to rely on goodwill.

What am I missing? The social account of the mother of a teen that killed herself due to bulling was ordered to have her social media accounts shut down, even though she wasn't posting anything to target the girls who did the bullying.

Why does a comment saying maybe the government shouldn't have that power not make sense in this context?

One comment made an unreasonable assumption/interpretation, and the commentators are talking about that.

I would think most people reading it understand it just fine but don't have a reason to leave a comment.

Then, what were you suggesting?

Honestly, I think it was clear. What's your next best guess after the other users'?

The Decentralized Internet already exists

In a very alpha stage version, sure. It's currently fragmented, unstable, slow, has limited services and can still be interfered with.

I want something significantly closer to the 'normal' internet, but with a greater capacity for redundancy, privacy and anonymity. This is absolutely possible, inevitable even, but also quite a long ways away.

I disagree. Something in the control of people would not inevitably end up in control of corporations.

Linux is a pretty good example of that not happening. Just one particular instance.

Let the big bucks make the big decisions.

Not at all what I was suggesting. Not even close.

Why do you believe that what you wrote is true?

Because I've seen this claim many times over more than a decade, and have seen evidence multiple times. I've also been able to search for it when I was curious and find it without issue.

Here's the first search result, a Vice article from 2018: https://www.vice.com/en/article/evkmz7/study-again-shows-pir...

I'm sure someone great at math could come up with a function. Although I'd think it's more to do with the popularity and amount of times a work is consumed, while accounting for people consuming it for free.

minimum wage. If you enjoy reading, but don't think they deserve even that amount, well...

I think they shouldn't be attached to that old business model in a world where self-publishing is possible.

I also think generous UBI should exist, but I guess that's another issue.

Is this 'couldn't' a self imposed requirement or a technical one I can't think of ?

Probably not technical. There is another element, obtaining a HDD encryption key from the TPM. The idea that the HDD is encrypted outside of my laptop and nothing can boot on my laptop that isn't my signed OS to read it.

Thinking about it I probably could do everything in the kernel directly - why not? Well, because it would be extra work to write all that, but probably not a technical limitation.

I have a bootloader signed with my own keys to boot my kernel. Nothing else will be able to boot the machine. I couldn't have this setup without a bootloader.

Actually, pirates consistently spend the most on content. Go figure.

They absolutely deserve compensation, just not nearly as much as they think they do.

That doesn't really sound like a donation. That sounds like paying for a service.

I agree, but this is common. Look at EFF 'donations' at conferences, for example, where they are just selling a product for a set price and call it a donation.

No one deserves the dehumanizing hell that is a US prison simply for making copies of information available.

God speed to the admins, and may justice prevail so they go free.

Do you have a better figure?

Yes, clearly, and I mentioned it numerous times.

Once again, you're just making assumptions. So, all this time you've just assuming the max fines won't apply - that's the entire crux of your argument, right?

As where I've been talking about a situation where the max fines are being imposed.

I really don't think you're reading or keeping the context of the discussion in mind when replying. I have no other explanation for you assuming 2% and asking if I have a better figure in spite of me specifically citing the max fine number as a prerequisite for my scenario numerous times.

They won’t.

You're awfully cocksure with nothing to back it up.

Apple's global revenue in 2023 was about 120 billion. EU revenue was 24 billion. DMA allows fines up to 10% of global revenue. Two max fines under the DMA is already more than their EU profit.

Also you’re assuming that Apple’s management is irrational and petulantv

I'm not the one making an assumption here. I'm saying if x then y which is perfectly reasonable. You're saying x would *NEVER* happen, which I would consider foolish.

I think Apple will comply with the EU to a point, I agree they are not trying to leave the EU at all. But ultimately they are still a US company and follow US leadership, who may want to do things or try and circumvent EU policies in a way they think are fine, but the EU doesn't.

I mean, there was already a clash with their first fine, it won't be surprising if more come.

I also really think you are being dismissive and downplaying their decision to not enter the AI market in the EU.

It’s just that this seems fairly obvious to me:

A very small fraction of people buying iPhones in Europe now would buy them if they had to ship them from outside the EU, pay the VAT themselves and have no warranty/support.

So sure it won’t be 100%, just 80-90% which doesn’t change anything

I'm so confused at what point you are making here. You're saying EU citizens, if Apple left the EU, would just, and to quote "ship them from outside the EU, pay the VAT themselves and have no warranty/support."

Is this correct? Because that has been specifically the point I was making. Jesus. My point though, to clarify again, is if they do that, Apple won't be subject to any EU rules. All those iPhones bought outside the EU won't have 3rd party app stores, for example, and the EU would be powerless to enforce that. Seriously. That's the point I made several comments ago that you decided to dispute. Which now you are making yourself?

Good thing the fines are optional and can be negotiated down

Source? Which of the fines so far have been negotiated down?

when apple starts complying with the regulations.

Heh. Or, Apple just starts withdrawing from spaces in the EU because they don't like the EU's behavior. For example, they are withdrawing from the AI space citing that exact reason.

If they are already pulling out of cashcows like AI, is it that much a stretch to think they could withdraw entirely?

Not to mention Apple consideres the regulations to be unclear given the the EC seem to want Apple to figure out the 'spirit' of the law and comply with that instead.

They could do that, that in no way means that they are planning to

They already do that. Look at what the max fines for say DMA or GDPR allow for. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume all your previous replies are because you haven't actually done this yet.

I don't look at free games, I'm not that rich.

Jesus christ lol. So, you're just confirming here you had no clue what you were talking about. You get that, right?

You're making very bold claims based on assumptions and misunderstanding, for something you don't even browser or participate in. Your initials aren't DK by any chance, are they?

And not only for the whales that pay 2000 for the hats.

Sure, anyone that can afford it and wants it will. Most people might just pay for a few $20 hats though, and get more enjoyment out of it than say 3 of their $8 cups of coffee.

Do you realize that any "free" title is designed to waste your time to keep you playing?

I mean, that'ss true in some cases, and I'd say that's true of the biggest free to play games pushed by the buggest companies with a history of being shady, but again (and this is key): that doesn't describe all free to play games.

You're doing the equivilant of insisting all operating systems must be unstable and crash because Windows used to.

Why do you think they are all endless $ACTIVITY or competitive multiplayer? Is your time worth that little?

I play free to play games to jump on and have a break. I'v played FPS games since I was a kid and find it a good way to destress. I see no problem in doing something I enjoy and would hardly call that a waste of time.

So they’d lose 20% of their global revenue just out of spite? Can you name a single rational reason why’d they do that?

If EU fines exceed EU revenue.

How? They won’t be able to sell directly to EU customers…

The EU would have to police its own citizens from going outsize their walls and buying iPhones from literally any other country.

It just doesn’t make any sense. Apple wouldn’t be able to sell to clients in the EU on a large scale.

So it made sense, and you understood fine, you just disagreed and decided to be obtuse about it. Sigh.

The point was simply that the EU can't touch a company in another country with no presence in the EU, even if EU citizens are buying from it.

All they can do is try and block payments to it, firewall it off, and similar things.

So sure, the EU could police its citizens buying iPhones online, but that's going to be an awful lot of work considering all the third party sellers, and I don't think it would be terribly successful. Not without enforcement which would be extremely unpopular.

It's only absurd because you chose absurd numbers to use.

Where are you getting that 2% figure from? The entire issue is that EU fines take from global revenue, not EU revenue.

This is very simple. If EU fines are greater than EU revenue, it would be absurd for Apple not to leave.

The little indie studios that I buy my games from are all pay once?

Why are you going out of your way to disingenuously interpret comments? It's strangely super-defensive, your comment history shows it isn't a rare occurrence.

No, maybe not the little indie studios you specifically buy your games from, but plenty of indie studios offer free to play games.

Go browse Steam or something before commenting more on this subject please.

Someone else paid $2000 for hats or whatever CSGO sells in the same period to cover the $20 you and other 98 players haven't paid.

Because they probably had disposable income and wanted to. It doesn't mean they are being fleeced, anymore than Balanciaga is 'fleecing' people here.

I take 'fleecing' here to mean conning, and there is no con happening. It's an honest transaction that people can take if they want to.

Any free to play game would have been completely different if it were designed as a pay once game.

No shit, business models evolve. That doesn't mean all free to play games are inherently predatory. That's honestly a very foolish assertion to try and make.