I think it's a little unfair to escalate my talking about a presumably invisible and flavorless level of contamination into somehow advocating for choking down soot-blasted cancer nachos.
For the record: that's not what I meant and I think any reasonable person would not have interpeted it as such having read the context of the post. It's a sealed bag of chips -- they have functioning taste buds and eyeballs for Pete's sake!
People have put worse things in their bodies. Some mildly contaminated chips won't kill you and probably won't even give you cancer.
Let's be honest, though... a standard bag of chips is already kind of bad for you -- maybe you should toss them out because you're better off without them either way? It's just a bag of chips at the end of the day.
Wayland is Wayland. If you use a Wayland compositor, you're getting a lot of security by virtue of design alone. Things like keyloggers and screenrecorders will not be able to intrude on your session barring vulnerability exploits. I'm not going to touch on the relative vulnerability risk of each environment since a) they're all relatively new & b) I've never implemented Wayland myself
With that being said, here's what's not protected by Wayland regardless of the chosen compositor: microphones, webcams, keyrings, and files.
For microphones & webcams, any distro which rolls Pipewire in combination with Wayland will be sufficient to secure these. Pretty much all Wayland environments roll Pipewire so this is only important to consider if you're running your own customized environment (be sure to disable any pre-existing PulseAudio daemon after setting up Pipewire to close this security hole)
For keyrings, these are handled by your environment's polkit implementation. Much like Wayland, there are several implementations of polkit and they're all just about equally secure barring any potential vulnerabilities... Just make sure that you're using an encrypted database (usually on by default) and that you have it configured to always relock & properly prompt for the unlock key.
For file access, this is actually a core probelm with Linux as a whole -- any unsandboxed application you run will be able to read any file that you can read. The solution is to use sandboxed applications whenever possible. The easiest way to achieve this is through using flathub/flatpak applications, since they will always list out and enforce their required permissions on a per-application basis. For non-flatkpak applications, you'll need to use "jail" environments (e.g.: bubblejail, firejail) in order to artificially restrict application permissions by hand.
It could probably be argued that the board didn’t do what was best for the investors, which is what they exist to do.
Incorrect. OpenAI LLC (the traded company) does not have a board of directors. The board of directors actually belong to the parent company, simply "OpenAI", which is a nonprofit organization -- the only thing that they're beholden to is the OpenAI company charter.
Here's a simplified breakdown:
Board of Directors =[controls]=> OpenAI (non-profit) =[controls]=> OpenAI LLC =[employs]=> OpenAI CEO
OpenAI LLC is obligated to act in the best financial interest of their shareholders, but OpenAI LLC does not actually have control over who sits in the CEO chair. That power goes to the non-profit "OpenAI" parent company -- a company beholden to their board, not shareholders.
I present for your consideration the case of September 3rd, 1967: the day Sweden switched from driving on the left side of the road to the right side. One would expect that the incredibly distracting process of overcoming a lifetime of learned habit would be a recipe for chaos, but in fact there were significantly fewer accidents than average on the day of the change [^1].
As it turns out, the danger of complacency outweighs the danger of distraction. It does not particularly matter where one directs their focus if they are not driving mindfully. In a more natural environment, we're good enough at identifying dangerous situations to pay attention when it matters, but roads are not a natural environment. For every alert person briefly annoyed by an audio notification there will be at least as many pedal-pushers too relaxed to even form coherent memories, let alone engage in defensive driving.[^2]
[^1]: The effect was not permanent, so I will be ignoring the alternative explanation that the new side was somehow massively superior to the extent required to explain the discrepancy. Ditto to the idea that fewer people were driving that one particular day, because the effect did last longer than a single day.
[^2]: Of course, just because someone's driving absent-mindedly doesn't mean that they're stupid. They'll catch on if you just buzz their phone randomly because you think it'll prevent crashes. The driver needs to believe that the danger is real which is something that the app has to earn by not being manipulative.
This is one of those interesting things. If we accept OP's premise for the sake of argument... then what does that really change? Society accepts that people can be lawfully killed on purpose given the "right" circumstances (e.g.: criminal punishment, war combat, equivocal self-defense). We generally don't like it, but we do fundamentally accept that human life is on the negotiating table when justified.
That's what irks me about the murder label. We already willfully choose to end human lives, irrevocably destroying a vast collection of lived experiences and social connections in the process. What is destroyed when an unborn child dies? A life which knows nobody, understands nothing, and thinks/feels at best at a level no more complex than animals which we routinely slaughter without a second thought. One might argue that the life itself contains some unknowable potential for these things, but that theoretical future potential comes at the price of the mother's current potential and freedoms.
The way I see it, the position is inherently precious. It fears the label of murder without caring to consider why the label exists. A philosophy so myopically focused on keeping one's own moral hands clean that the term "second order consequence" may as well be written in hieroglyphics.
Let's not get too crazy. There's a 15 year period where young men tend to get injured and young women tend to give birth that acts as a major filter. If you plotted death rates on a graph it would look like a trident -- that's life without antibiotics.
It's certainly true that elderly were not a rare sight, but those elderly who could be found were almost universally hardy of constitution or talented at avoiding danger. Quite literally the end of the bell curve.
Not a dumb question! This is what I'll have to do if no better solution comes around.
The reason I haven't already done that is that the underlying Holo code is not designed for multi-user. I won't be able to just swap out the credentials because doing so will cause it to blow up when it fails to edit old posts owned by the old bot account. In other words: it's going to be a big hassle to move over and even in the best case scenario things will break and generally look ugly.
This is actually a big fear of mine. The content on !anime@lemmy.ml is nearly identical to the content found on ani.social. If you compare the new queues you can see for yourself just how much crosspost activity there is.
If it's a content problem, then we have a content problem too. It's an uncomfortable position to be in with this much uncertainty
But I think that monotheistic religions throughout history were one of the most divisive factors among people that otherwise would get along just fine.
Yes, I believe this is the part that got you oh buddy'd. People make religions, they are a reflection in the mirror. Trying to solve the history of humanity by excising monotheism is like trying to convince your reflection to stop scowling at you
You could argue that "moral compass" means more than just a strong sense of right/wrong. Presumably, most people have that, even if we don't describe it as such. I think OP intended something more like a "strong sense of harmony" wherein everyone has a shared common understanding of some greater good and therefore work towards it with common cause.
It's still a fairly naive notion, but for an entirely different reason. Rather than self-righteous chaos, such a wish would lead to a sort of moral tyranny imposed by one single person's preconceptions of what constitutes a moral life.
I think it's a little unfair to escalate my talking about a presumably invisible and flavorless level of contamination into somehow advocating for choking down soot-blasted cancer nachos.
For the record: that's not what I meant and I think any reasonable person would not have interpeted it as such having read the context of the post. It's a sealed bag of chips -- they have functioning taste buds and eyeballs for Pete's sake!