JubilantJaguar @ JubilantJaguar @lemmy.world

European. Contrarian liberal. Insufferable green. History graduate. **I nev

---

Read more

Posts

12

Comments

1,484

Joined

2 yr. ago

with javascript and cookies turned off

My threat model isn’t the tightest

If that's not tight, I hardly know what is. The modern web is all but unusable without JS.

So, what I'm reading here is that tab groups are better than privacy.

As others have hinted, there's a tension here. Confiscating big tech's access to your email is a major privacy win. But putting your actual name in your email address is... not so much. At the very least you won't even have the option to obscure your identity from a correspondent. If you have a website at that domain, it too will be chained to your email identity, thus telling your correspondent all about you.

These realizations led me, personally, to ditch my whole setup of own-domain email. If the domain is going to be a pseudonym, might as well save some money and just use a pseudonymous handle at the email provider's domain. That's what I now do - with one of the privacy-respecting email hosts, of course.

Then it's a hassle to change host later, you say? Yes, a little, but here arises another paradox: from the perspective of privacy, it's actually an advantage to changing one's email address from time to time.

Yes, that's my thinking. For now it's acceptable.

But who's making these "updates"? Who's doing the actual work of keeping the software secure? Mozilla is.

If everybody moves to a free-riding fork, Mozilla goes to 0% and there will be no browser let alone updates.

I share your general reasoning (about staying with Firefox). Except this:

Firefox works perfectly fine for me, so there’s not much added benefit

The added benefit of going with one of the downstream forks is that you can be sure they're not gonna pull some new monetization trick next month. That does count for something.

BUT, again, I share your concerns about security, that's why I'll likely stay with Firefox till the end.

Yes, your theory about inevitable concentration sounds like the one of Thomas Piketty (where war functions to keep a lid on the concentration). Depressingly persuasive.

Personally, I find it hard to deny that capitalism has been incredibly successful at creating abundance seemingly out of nothing. I see it as a kind of ingenious roaring engine, the whole question is how to somehow harness it to good purposes.

And also how to turn it off. Because I think that the abundance does not come magically out of nowhere, as orthodox economics seem to believe. It comes from plundering the natural world, which the human economy sits on top of.

Another word is needed, this one has become so baggy as to be meaningless. Capitalism has been the predominant economic system across the world for centuries now. It just means the accumulation of surpluses, creating economic growth. It has no a-priori about what's done with the surpluses.

Just as the Gilded Age and today's broligarchy were underpinned by capitalism, so were New Deal liberalism and 1980s Swedish social democracy. That last model in particular created a society that was freer and fairer (so: less evil) than any ostensibly "non-capitalist" one has ever been.

Yep, I use trash-put, and trash-empty with a 30-day timeout. But no bit-scrubbing needed because the partition is encrypted.

Photorec, on the other hand, was truly a gift from the cosmos

Can confirm. Over the years I've had recourse to this little tool several times and always found to to be almost disturbingly effective.

To explain why AMD is fine: Linux doesn't care about the brand, it just needs a chip that uses the x86 instruction set. This was Intel's invention and AMD occupies the niche of Intel's competitor. Intel is Coke, AMD is Pepsi, basically.

True, but it still gives the Malian government an ultimate authority over the domain, which just seems completely dumb to me. The also-semi-failed Libya has ultimate authority over ly domains (like bit.ly) and has actually used its power to shut down domains for being against Libyan law. Domain hacks are not just ugly, they're dumb.

Firstly, the French troops were invited by Mali's government to help it put down its jihadist insurgents. The Russian ones were invited, in turn, for the same reason, after a media-propaganda campaign by Russia that played on historic animosity dating from the colonial period. A propaganda campaign filled with angry rhetoric and sounding much like your rant.

Meanwhile, Mali is still a semi-failed state with a jihadi problem which was caused by neither France nor Russia. And on top of that it now has brutal boorish Russian mercenaries instead of generally well-behaved French regular soldiers. Mali got a terrible deal and it was their own fault.

You know why I'm not embarrassed to say that? Precisely because I'm not a colonialist. I believe that Mali is not a child, it's an adult. It has agency, it's not a colony of anyone, it's a sovereign country that can make choices for itself. If anyone's views here are colonialist, it's yours.

Mentioning the French troops was a bit offtopic. But my point stands. Mali is a semi-failed state that seems to have exchanged one set of foreign lords for another, much worse, set.

This seems to be missing Mali, the home of .ml. It's in West Africa and since the French soldiers left it's been an authoritarian client state of Russia. Very appropriate.

Yeah you definitely forgot the word "leverage" in the v1 pitch

I got it.

It has no ads and never will.

This sounds more like a dreaded VC pitch! (But true in substance.)

Just don't tell 'em all that or they'll never come.