ViViDboarder

I'm not seeing how that doesn't help support DRM?

It does nothing to dissuade content gatekeepers from employing restrictive DRM on their sites.

Anti-DRM would be avoiding anything that gives money to those that employ DRM to incentivize the removal of the DRM. Frankly, flat out piracy (streaming ripped content) is more likely to result in the removal of DRM than making it appear that the DRM is working well for the provider.

Regarding point 1, recent judicial decisions on scraping seemed to have entrenched it as legal.

On two, it seems like they are concerned with trademark to me. A workaround could be making a website that parses and displays Twitter content and call it something else. Then, in an app, make no mention of Twitter and only the website.

That’s because San Francisco is expensive. A sandwich with no sides at many places downtown is more than $10 and I’m pretty sure it’s not organized shoplifting…

Until the plastic results in loss of sales because people don’t want to bother, we probably won’t see it reversed. The cost is sunk. Why wouldn’t they leave it, even if ineffective, as long as it doesn’t cost them anything?

Theres that kind of growth, and then the expectation that you grow into every conceivable vertical to expand more rapidly or support stock prices for an otherwise stagnant business.

Years ago someone reported this about GitHub projects as well. If I recall correctly, working as intended was the response.

Yea. That’s the part that is ripped. Making a new photo sharing app shouldn’t be controversial.

I like Pixelfed, but it was naive to rip the filter names and think that was somehow ok. It was also a totally unnecessary thing to copy. An imitation filter could be called anything and people will be able to tell (assuming you did a good enough job imitating).

Yea. And you’re not “on the internet”. It’s a series of nodes that talk with each other and route requests between them. /s

There is no strict technical definition of “on” in this case.

No commuters? What city are you referring to? In SF, Muni is packed along my commute to the city. Probably there’s not as much commuting, but there’s certainly quite a bit.

Also, more dense housing actually usually means less commuting. That’s one of the reasons I generally support it. People living closer to work means less commute time resulting in less carbon as well.

As far as I can tell, the people against market rate housing are really just using low-income housing as justification of their NIMBYism.

Kind of like how domestic espionage is justified with calls of “think of the children”. They try to make you seem heartless to oppose their position.

I think l the reason is that it means that they don’t trust or don’t want their users to know what they are doing on your machine. To me, that is already a malicious premise. Even if they aren’t trying to exfiltrate my data or anything.

Fraud is already criminal.

Exactly. Big pint media companies like those you mentioned and New Yorker put out plenty of articles in spite of legal threats. They have legal teams that can tell them if the threats are founded or not and generally have a good track record of defending their positions.

What someone other than these media groups may do is make a “bold claim” that may be true but not demonstrably so. Something like that may shy a big company away from casting the first stone and instead to report on someone else’s claim as an allegation.

It doesn’t look like you disagree to me. The result of such taxes or regulations is less and more expensive consumption.

Yea, the OP said federal legislators should do something. The constitution provides them a legal framework for writing laws.

Bahamas have.

I want an open and private platform. Google may let me sideload apps, but the operating system is hostile to data privacy. For me, an iPhone that I can install other apps on is the best alternative apart from going to a GNU/Linux phone.

Additionally, it’s a benefit that users can now install any apps that Apple refuses to allow.

I’ve had one on my keychain for at least 5 years now with no issues. It would have been longer but I did switch to a USB-C key two years ago. I kept the old one enrolled as my backup key.

I use a password manager, but my Yubikey has all my 2FA. Including TOTP.

What you described is the fact that generalizations can be useful for survival, not that they are accurate.

$1000 right away before the item even went back.

They don’t do this anymore. I recently bought a hard drive and found the anti static bag was opened. When I returned it Amazon made it clear I would not get a refund until it was back at the warehouse. I dropped it at a Whole Foods return desk and got my refund days later.

Rolling your own crypto is bad, unless you’re an authority on crypto. Moxy certainly is. Also, Signal Protocol isn’t an encryption algorithm. As far as I know, it still uses AES and Curve25519 for the actual encryption.

It’s possible and how to do it is public. Signal has encrypted group chats across devices already and is open source.

That’s exactly why it’s deceptive.

Most people think of “private” as between the conversation parties, not everyone in the conversation, the company, and any government with leverage on them.

Encryption at rest prevents from some intrusion attacks but does absolutely nothing against a warrant if the government has leverage.

I’m not sure what the threat is that the phone number opens you up to.

That a government will scan all domestic phone numbers against a Signal API to identify a list of users who, at one time, installed Signal and use that list to target you? They can do the same with IP addresses of people using VPNs as well. Something is tied to you regardless.

You’re right that the Signal would allow this by phone number or IP, so it’s an additional angle at the same threat.

Each party picks something it seems. Republicans can’t seem to be bothered with the 4th amendment and Democrats seem to support it. At least at local levels. At the federal level nobody seems to care.

So I’m this threat model the government knows your phone number, suspects you’ve been communicating with others, and beats a confession out of you… Why is the phone number being used in a chat app significant?

They can still beat you with a wrench to divulge your information even if it’s on Matrix or even pen and paper.

I’m that case, literally nothing will protect you from this. Any recipient can put anyone in any conversation.

Sorry, why should they work with Woodpecker? I like the project, but options are generally good. For example, Why work on Woodpecker? Why not Jenkins?

California is At-Will. You can fire for “no reason”. Someone could try to claim your reason was a lie and that it was actually based on discrimination against a protected class though.

Yea, I don’t find it flattering at all. In fact, it lays out a bunch of pretty ugly details about the arrangement with Alameda.