There are difficult choices that have to be made. Choices about who we are and who we want to be when the world is in crisis and people’s lives and freedoms are at risk.

It’s easy to laugh at people who “choose the mountain” - deliberately making their lives harder and more complicated to pursue their values. We laugh because we’ve been taught, we’ve been convinced that sincerity and idealism are cringeworthy, embarrassing to the point of pornographic discomfort.

But that cynicism didn’t help us stave off the last gasps of bigoted, white supremacist power, and it won’t help us fight against it.

We need the idealism that pushes ordinary people to make better decisions and stick to them.

Yes, even if that looks like switching email providers.

No notes!

Yeah, for sure, but I don’t want to be Brin, I want a llama farm. 🦙

Give me a salary that guarantees $1 million a year post-tax, and I’ll do it for a couple of years until I’ve saved up for a seaside llama farm I can fuck off to. But even at Google, almost no one is making that as an “IC”.

100%. Even them saying “But (using a cert to unlock the device) is crossing the line.” is the sort of arbitrary moral line-drawing that tech bros are prone to, where they think they deserve to dictate what people can do with their products/ code. The same as LLM companies saying it’s wrong to train on their output, while training on everyone else’s.

I’ve tried this route before, but honestly I don’t think the juice is worth the squeeze for the average person. There’s also almost no way to assess its effectiveness.

You know, at least it’s not Brave, throwing in cryptomining bs, getting caught selling data without telling anyone, or using the profits to push COVID conspiracy theories and anti-LGBT activism, or getting their funding directly from Founders Fund (Peter Thiel).

deleted by creator

I tend to trust Mozilla (more than other browser-owning companies), but they really should just clarify exactly what they do that would be considered as sale of data in any jurisdictions.

They seem to be implying that the data is just metadata that has been abstracted for (presumably ad-targeting) commercial purposes, and there are jurisdictions that consider derived metadata as still being “user data”, but in that case just make a blog post laying out what and where you are sharing. If your “partners” are opposed to people knowing about them, or you are scared that people would not like who you’re in bed with, that is a problem.

Also, it’s dead simple to send someone else (or tell them over the phone) 6 numbers, when you’re being phished. Much harder for people to send someone a QR code.

8th amendment

Oh, don’t worry, they’ll axe that ‘weak shit’ as well. Remember Trump telling cops to not “be too nice” in his first term?

MLK never stops being relevant and right to a ‘T’.

You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.

Yes, but the architectures they are dropping are older 32-bit ones. That’s why I said support is “dying”, not “dead”.

The changelog itself notes that this is about 32-bit support:

Debian’s support for 32-bit PC (known as the Debian architecture i386) now no longer covers any i586 processor.

Understandable, but still kind of sad to see support for 32-bit dying. Mostly because it makes me feel old. :P

The part about not wanting this to become Reddit is more about content and site ethos, not size.

And sure, there are some ex-redditors whose views may not be welcome here, but there’s no need to put disclaimers in every comment.

I get called a Luddite (which honestly makes me preen) at work because I am very skeptical of new technology ever being fundamentally different than some already-extant tool. Almost everything billed as new is just an iteration on something you already have, or if you don’t have, don’t need.

SaaS and I/PaaS has been a horrible shift in the industry, because it takes a truth (that most orgs don’t have the people or expertise needed to run large-scale environments and the tools needed to support and secure them), and entrenches that in policy by handing the money you could be spending training people to do it, to another org, further shrinking that knowledgebase in the industry. It was bad enough when that signing-over of core responsibilities was happening with small IT companies via MSPs (who were only ever supposed to be “IT for non-IT companies”), but *aaS has pushed that to mid and even large companies.

It was supposed to help IT professionals do their jobs, but the reality is that it’s just another money extraction tool, and job-destroyer.

I just got a Framework 16 about a year ago, and I’m not worried. I LOVE my fw, and I don’t think you’ll be disappointed. But I think the other commenters have the right of it, they’re probably leaning into either a tablet or a handheld game console.

ShallowReveal

Stewart has always had way too much faith in our institutions being inherently positive, and I fear it’s made him feckless at this critical moment. An institution captured by Nazis is a Nazi institution, and must be treated accordingly.

Man pages, help files, and commented configuration files galore

Technical documentation != Tutorials. Not even remotely.

Linux support forums might be hostile to entitled noobs looking for a handout and a quick fix

“Oh so you use Linux? Name every distro (to prove you ‘put in the effort’ to my standards)”

Sarcasm aside, Lime Buzz is completely correct; FOSS as an ecosystem has cultivated an air of ahem techno-elitism, and that severely undermines its actual usefulness as a tool of individual freedom or certainly resistance. If a tool requires a bunch of X (time, money, base knowledge, etc) in order to utilize, it’s not going to be useful to people who do not have that resource to spend on it. Which is going to be the majority of any given group. And that has really made it as an ecosystem much less important than many other concerns. Individual projects can still be important, but Linux is certainly not going to save us from Authoritarianism.

Corporations pay for support services. The code is free (as in speech). No one ever claimed that the support was also (or even should be) free.

Corporations may unfortunately be people, but people are certainly not corporations, and shouldn’t be expected to pay for everything corporations do.

If you believe that Linux actually helps people- that it materially improves their lives over being trapped in a predatory tech world built by for-profit entities who are happy to sell their customers out to a fascist government- then you are conceptualizing the relationship between Linux evangelists and new users incorrectly. We’re not providing sales and tech support in that case, we’re providing them aid. And aid workers don’t ask people to show how much they’ve tried to help themselves before offering them help.

And if you don’t think Linux actually aids peoples’ lives, then you just agree with Lime Buzz that

There are far more important things to worry about and to do.

Relative to people in their country, sure. But China can’t and isn’t interested in flying over to the US to arrest you if you talk to their AI models about Taiwan being its own country, whereas no one should have any doubt that OpenAI or any other US AI company is happy to tell Trump’s administration who’s been asking it about LGBT+ issues or other topics the US government is now against.

It’s not whataboutism anymore, it’s literally that both are evil authoritarian governments, but one (US) has physical access to US users, and the other doesn’t.