Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)QU
Posts
17
Comments
1,445
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Why use git exactly? You're never changing the content of the files themselves (excluding the effect of lossy compression) so you also don't need to track those changes, right?
    This seems more like a job for rsync.

    Aside from that, I don't know more for how to achieve the full setup you're trying to create, sorry

  • You just need to run the installation with one drive at a time if you want to be extra sure, then each will have its own boot partition and they can still work together, for example I have 3 drives, one Linux, one Windows and one storage, the Linux one has GRUB on it and it detects the bootloader on the Windows drive just fine so you can select either from that or the UEFI boot selector. Never had updates scramble anything for neither of the two systems

  • The tool presents a significant privacy risk, and shows that people may not be as anonymous in the YouTube comments sections as they may think.

    I don't understand how this makes the privacy on YouTube any worse when all the information it sources from is already public, this is just automated doxxing, which, while we'll agree to be unethical, was never a privacy violation, it is just the consequence of the actions of who posted the information to begin with.
    Also does it really violate YouTube's privacy policy? It's new to me that service consumers can be subject to the policy when it's not the third parties that YouTube actively sends the information to, that sounds more to me like Terms of service, which are hardly enforceable fully (thank goodness, so we can have our yt-dlp and PipePipe)

  • That's different, it's technically possible not to comply with that statement because the location data is sent and stored, it takes just not deleting it to violate that, it just evaluates to a pinky promise that has to be verified by inspecting their systems.
    This, on the other hand, is a technically verifiable claim, the code is open and it all runs locally on the same machine, the TEE will give the green light and that's how apps will accept your biometric verification, the only thing that might be suspicious is with the implementation of the TEE, I don't know if every manufacturer keeps the data it gets on the device or secretly communicates outside, this unknown is also a good reason to use a Google Pixel device if you care about that

    Google Pixel phones use a TEE OS called Trusty which is open source, unlike many other phones.

    From the Privacy Guides Mobile phones page

  • I'm all for not giving more data points where it's not needed, but is this as bad it seems? All biometric data remains stored on the device, it isn't sent to Google, or any app for that matter, that's how the API works