NateNate60

joined 1 year ago
[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

You could, however, accurately say that a French family founded the modern British monarchy. That much is still true. The UK royal family can still trace its lineage directly to William the Conqueror.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 95 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Taking wagers on how long it will last before Trump's FTC revokes it

(Bets are only accepted in the form of biscuits 🍪)

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

In most cases, destroying evidence will result in an adverse inference being drawn against the accused. It means that the court will assume that the evidence was incriminating which is why you destroyed it.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The police can engage in rubber-hose cryptanalysis. In many countries, it's legal to keep a suspect in prison indefinitely until they comply with a warrant requiring them to divulge encryption keys. And that's not to mention the countries where they'll do more than keep you in a decently-clean cell with three meals a day to, ahem, encourage you to divulge the password.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 320 points 1 week ago (49 children)

Law enforcement shouldn't be able to get into someone's mobile phone without a warrant anyway. All this change does is frustrate attempts by police to evade going through the proper legal procedures and abridging the rights of the accused.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Did any distro give concrete reasons for why they have actively chosen not to package it, or perhaps they just haven't given it much thought yet?

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

This is not what I would consider a "political reason". A political reason would be something like refusing to package it because of what political party Howard supports.

There is plenty of software you'll find in these repositories that aren't under the GPL. CMake uses BSD, the Apache web server uses the eponymous Apache license, LibreOffice and Firefox use MPL, Godot and Bitcoin Core use the MIT license, and I'm sure there are plenty of other software licenses that I haven't thought of yet.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 25 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

It's not really like they were evil about it though. Google attracted customers through its huge (at the time) 1 GB email storage space, which at the time, was unbelievably generous and also impressive in that it was offered for free. Outlook (Hotmail at the time) also drew in customers by offering the service for free, anywhere in the world, without needing to sign up for Internet service. Remember, at the time, e-mail was a service that was bundled with your Internet service provider.

Into the mid-2000s and 2010s, the way that Gmail and Outlook kept customers was through bundle deals for enterprise customers and improvements to their webmail offerings. Gmail had (and arguably, still has) one of the best webmail clients available anywhere. Outlook was not far behind, and it was also usually bundled with enterprise Microsoft Office subscriptions, so most companies just decided, "eh, why not". The price (free) and simplicity is difficult to beat. It was at that point that Microsoft Outlook (the mail client, not the e-mail service) was the "gold standard" for desktop mail clients, at least according to middle-aged office workers who barely knew anything about e-mail to begin with. Today, the G-Suite, as it is called, is one of the most popular enterprise software suites, perhaps second only to Microsoft Office. Most people learned how to use e-mail and the Internet in the 2000s and 2010s through school or work.

You have to compare the offerings of Google and Microsoft with their competitors. AOL mail was popular but the Internet service provided by the same company was not. When people quit AOL Internet service, many switched e-mail providers as well, thinking that if they did not maintain their AOL subscription, they would lose access to their mailbox as well.

Google and Microsoft didn't "kill" the decentralised e-mail of yesteryear. They beat it fair and square by offering a superior product. If you're trying to pick an e-mail service today, Gmail and Outlook are still by far the best options in terms of ease of use, free storage, and the quality of their webmail clients. I would even go so far as to say that the Gmail web client was so good that it single-handedly killed the desktop mail client for casual users. I think that today, there are really only three legitimate players left if you're a rational consumer who is self-interested in picking the best e-mail service for yourself: Proton Mail if you care a lot about privacy, and Gmail or Outlook if you don't.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, so It turns out fewer people care about and really want those things than you think...

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

Because the "US Government" is not a monolithic entity but rather, a large and complex democratic organisation that citizens can influence the composition of through political participation.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If that's what's needed, I can say with some certainty that adoption isn't going to be picking up any time this decade.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago (14 children)

I still have no idea how to use passkeys. It doesn't seem obvious to the average user.

I tried adding a passkey to an account, and all it does is cause a Firefox notification that says "touch your security key to continue with [website URL]". It is not clear what to do next.

 

The jump in distro versions, say, from Fedora 38 to Fedora 39, is not the same as the jump from Windows 10 to Windows 11. It's more like the jump from version 23H2 to 24H2.

Now, I'm sure even most Windows users among those reading will ask "wtf are 23H2 and 24H2"? The answer is that those version numbers are the Windows analogue to the "23.10" at the end of "Ubuntu 23.10". But the difference is that this distinction is invisible to Windows users.

Why?

Linux distros present these as "operating system upgrades", which makes it seem like you're moving from two different and incompatible operating systems. Windows calls them "feature updates". They're presented as a big deal in Linux, whereas on Windows, it's just an unusually large update.

This has the effect of making it seem like Linux is constantly breaking software and that you need to move to a completely different OS every six to nine months, which is completely false. While that might've been true in the past, it is increasingly true today that anything that will run on, say, Ubuntu 22.04 can also run without modification (except maybe for hardcoded version checks/repository names) on Ubuntu 23.10, and will still probably work on Ubuntu 24.04. It's not guaranteed, but neither is it on Windows, and the odds are very good either way.

I will end on the remark that for many distros, a version upgrade is implemented as nothing more than changing the repositories and then downloading the new versions of all the packages present and running a few scripts. The only relevant changes (from the user's perspective) is usually the implementation of new features and maybe a few changes to the UI. In other words, "feature update" describes it perfectly.

view more: next ›