FreedomAdvocate @ FreedomAdvocate @lemmy.net.au

Oh hi there *person who I've upset by expressing my opinion who is now want

---

Read more

Posts

1

Comments

1,244

Joined

3 mo. ago

Ok so no, there are no laws to prevent any government in Europe doing the exact same thing.

If you think that no government agencies in Europe are spying on your data, oh boy do I have news for you lol

Read an article, apparently - it explains why the old systems are still in use.

It's a windows subsystem, and it runs linux.

I'd say any of the multitude of programs that don't work on linux.

they’ve all but lost the battle for cloud servers

Azure is enormous, what are you talking about?

Xbox is transitioning to "release on everything", so their upcoming games will all work on proton (apart from COD etc that have anti-cheat, although wouldn't surprise me if they make that linux compatible eventually). Microsoft would rather you subscribe to game pass to play their games on Linux than not subscribe to game pass and not give them any money. It wouldn't surprise me if they eventually released a Linux Xbox app.

Careful now, you're gonna be called a bootlicker for that lol. Everything Microsoft do is evil according to Lemmings.

You're 100% right though. People on here regurgitate catchphrases and terms that they heard other people in their echo chamber use without understanding what they mean, and because the person who they heard using it also didn't know what they meant, it's just a comedy of incorrect usage of terms.

It's amazing that people still don't understand Microsoft's goals despite them being very open and telling everyone over and over and over - they want to be the defacto solutions on everything, so their stuff needs to run on everything. They will start releasing all of their stuff on linux eventually, because even if only 1% of people use Linux, Microsoft want them using Microsoft services.

That was 30 years ago, you're going to have to move on one day.

That's not new though. Since 2020 the Biden government was forcing multiple social media sites to censor accounts and posts and to force through an agenda, and the people who are complaining over this were likely the ones who had no issue with that - because it was their "side" doing the censoring. Those of us who did call it out WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING were called conspiracy theorists, told we were spreading "misinformation", and so on. You didn't care then, why now?

Your data not being safe in the biggest data platforms in the world is absolutely newsworthy.

What do you mean by "data not being safe"? Losing access to your email? Any "data" that you have in a third party service isn't "safe", this isn't new and it isn't news.

I don’t understand how you can be so apathetic about that.

Because it's been this way since the start of the internet and it's not going to change. Companies can ban people. Governments can force companies to ban people. Governments keep passing new laws to enable them to control speech and the narrative online because they know that the mainstream media that they control is going the way of the dodo. Those of us who have been fighting against it for well over a decade at this point are over it because the people crying about it now were the same people calling for it for the last 4 years, asking for the government and social media companies to ban everyone they disagree with. You asked for it, you begged for it, now you've got it.

Does EU law prevent a countries government from ordering a social media account to be blocked?

That’s not newsworthy because it’s nothing new or unexpected. “US companies obey US law” isn’t newsworthy.

As I said in another comment, it’s not Microsoft’s position to be the judge of who is and isn’t fascist. It’s their position to stay in business, and you don’t do that by disobeying the government.

Do you think Microsoft should have sacrificed the entire company instead of follow the law?

You’re forgetting the fact that the government ordered MS to do this. Moving your data to the EU does nothing to prevent any EU government from ordering the same thing.

Am I supposed to come up with new arguments every time? Israel are trying to eliminate Hamas. That’s the goal. Sorry if I keep repeating it. Maybe I’m repeating it because you refuse to acknowledge it?

You say:

This give Israel the right to do whatever it takes

No, I say that Hamas started the war and Israel are trying to finish it.

I say Israel aren’t committing a genocide because their intent is only to stop an internationally recognised terrorist organisation.

Then explain why one can successfully use and old synology to “mark” drives as “authentic synology” and move them into a newer DSM model to use them.

Because they have to have a way for legacy users to maintain functionality. Going forward though, new drives in new devices are handled differently. It's basically a quality control type thing - they're providing the support and warranty for them, so they're only "guaranteeing" that their checks work on their drives. That makes sense. They don't want to be on the hook for saying that a drive that isn't theirs was perfectly healthy and then it drops dead an hour later and you lose all your data.

As explained ad nauseum on various yt channels, having a hw compatibility list makes sense for users likely to buy support, like business users.

Again though, the disks still work. The compatibility lists simply tell you if they are officially supported and will get certain features.

But add on top of it that there is no functional hardware difference between certified and non-certified, and it becomes pretty clear that Synology is to be avoided.

But add on top of it that there is no functional hardware difference between certified and non-certified, and it becomes pretty clear that Synology is to be avoided.

Avoiding them because of missing a few proprietary synology disk health checks is such a strange thing to do lol. You won't get synologys disk health checks if you were to make your own server, so why is not having them on a synology a deal breaker?

Did you not get that job because you failed a drug test though? I'm going to assume no.

If you get fired from a job that a recruiter got you because you failed a drug test, you'll be blacklisted by not only that recruiter but most other recruiters in the area. Source: few good friends who are recruiters for prominent recruitment firms, they tell me stories.

Would I interview to a job where I know I wouldn't get the job if they drug test before hiring, or would be fired because they would drug test me after hiring me? No, because that would be a waste of time.

Also don't take drugs and then drive for a job please.