Copy left is very much not communist. Get out of here with that tankie rhetoric

i don’t actually think copyleft is communist per se, but i dig that you’re somehow mad about my joke - the intended butt of which was people who (typically disparagingly) insist that it is 😂

yep, since it’s under a “copyleft” (communist) software license that’s how it has to be.

I wrote a comment here about why sealed sender does not achieve what it purports to.

Formally.

This video is full of jarring edits which initially made me wonder if someone had cut out words or phrases to create an abbreviated version. But, then I realized there are way too many of them to have been done manually. I checked the full original video and from the few edits i manually checked it seems like it is just inconsequential pauses etc that were removed: for instance, when Linus says “the other side of that picture” in the original there is an extra “p” sound which is removed here.

Yet another irritating and unnecessary application of neural networks, I guess.

Lemmy added an alt text field for image-only posts a few versions ago; it would be nice if more people would use it.

At least this post does link to the mastodon post which it is a screenshot of.

Ads?! in Ubuntu? Never! They were simply “integrating online scope results into the home lens of the dash” 🤡

(that is an actual quote from the sentence immediately following “We’re not putting ads in Ubuntu” in Mark Shuttleworth’s blog post responding to the entirely predictable backlash after they did this, twelve years ago…)

To answer your question: yes, YTA 🤦

Also, I’m deleting this post per asklemmy rule 3.

The tone which comes across in the video (linked from the other post I linked to in this post’s description) is unfortunately much less amicable than this article conveys.

the guy speaking off camera in the linked 3min 30s of the video is Ted Ts’o, according to this report about the session.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge’s_law_of_headlines

If copyright holders want to take action, their complaints will go to the ISP subscriber.

So, that would either be the entity operating the public wifi, or yourself (if your mobile data plan is associated with your name).

If you’re in a country where downloading copyrighted material can have legal consequences (eg, the USA and many EU countries), in my opinion doing it on public wifi can be rather anti-social: if it’s a small business offering you free wifi, you risk causing them actual harm, and if it is a big business with open wifi you could be contributing to them deciding to stop having open wifi in the future.

So, use a VPN, or use wifi provided by a large entity you don’t mind causing potential legal hassles for.

Note that if your name is somehow associated with your use of a wifi network, that can come back to haunt you: for example, at big hotels it is common that each customer gets a unique password; in cases like that your copyright-infringing network activity could potentially be linked to you even months or years later.

Note also that for more serious privacy threat models than copyright enforcement, your other network activities on even a completely open network can also be linked to identify you, but for the copyright case you probably don’t need to worry about that (currently).

he wouldn’t be able to inject backdoors even if he wanted to, since the source code is open

Jia Tan has entered the chat

It looks like Framework only offers entry-level Radeon GPUs.

If you want to do GPU compute in a laptop and money is no object, something from Lenovo’s Legion series of gaming laptops is probably a good choice. You can get one with an RTX 4090 in it, and the series (or many models of it, at least) appears to have reasonably good Linux support. (Disclaimer: I’ve never used one.)

i think /c/politics@lemmy.ml was removed due to redundancy with /c/worldnews@lemmy.ml more than /c/usa@lemmy.ml.

that’s not to say it couldn’t be a place for non-news-related political discussions, but in practice it mostly got posts which would fit in worldnews.

it could be restored if one or more users with a good history wants to take responsibility for moderating it.

What a confused image.

1. TiVo complied with the GPLv2 and distributed source code for their modifications to Linux. What they did not do was distribute the cryptographic keys which would allow TiVo customers to run modified versions it on their TiVo devices. This is what motivated the so-called anti-tivoization clause in GPLv3 (the “Installation Information” part of Section 6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.).
2. Linux remains GPLv2, so, everyone today still has the right to do the same thing TiVo did (shipping it in a product with a locked bootloader).
3. Distributing Linux (or any GPLv2 software) with a threat of violence against recipients who exercise some of the rights granted by the license, as is depicted in this post, would be a violation section 6 of GPLv2 (“You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients’ exercise of the rights granted herein.”).

If you use systemd’s DHCP client, since version 235 you can set Anonymize=true in your network config to stop sending unique identifiers as per RFC 7844 Anonymity Profiles for DHCP Clients. (Don’t forget to also set MACAddressPolicy=random.)

I’m pretty sure that immigration in the US can just confiscate your devices if you are not a citizen .

CBP can and does “detain” travelers’ devices at (or near) the border, without a warrant or any stated cause, even if they are US citizens.

Here is part of the notice they give people when they do:

Or just removing my biometrics?

Ultimately you shouldn’t cross the US border carrying devices or encrypted data which you aren’t prepared to unlock for DHS/CBP, unless you’re willing to lose the hardware and/or be denied entry if/when you refuse to comply.

If they decide to, you’ll be handed this: “You are receiving this document because CBP intends to conduct a border search of your electronic device(s). This may include copying and retaining data contained in the device(s). […] Failure to assist CBP in accessing the electronic device and its contents for examination may result in the detention of the device in order to complete the inspection.”

Device searches were happening a few hundred times each month circa 2009 (the most recent data i could find in a quick search) but, given other CBP trends, presumably they’ve become more frequent since then.

In 2016 they began asking some visa applicants for social media usernames, and then expanded it to most applicants in 2019, and the new administration has continued that policy. I haven’t found any numbers about how often they actually deny people entry for failing to disclose a social media account.

In 2017 they proposed adding the authority to also demand social media passwords but at least that doesn’t appear to have been implemented.