hedgehog @ hedgehog @ttrpg.network

Posts

1

Comments

872

Joined

2 yr. ago

Ok, well it was intended to be an opinion, so your assertion that I'm incorrect is incorrect because its my opinion, but that aside, which part?

My understanding is that your opinion is “This is bullshit because X” (where “X” refers to this law applying to Lemmy and thus having the implications you outlined) but your comment was almost entirely about it applying to Lemmy and the implications. If your opinion were “It would be bullshit if it applied to Lemmy,” I would agree with you, but point out that it does not.

This essentially adds up to government proctorship of any "public forum" on the internet, including here...

This is incorrect because the law does not apply to Lemmy. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Services_Act and the associated sources for more details on why. If you believe that Lemmy has more than 45 million users in the EU please share where you’re getting those figures.

So if I randomly throw an "all lives matter" right here mid-comment, which while at face value is a ridiculously benign thing to say, can be and almost always is considered to be hate speech, lemmy is entirely obligated to immediately remove my comment or face heavy sanctions from the EU.

This hypothetical scenario is irrelevant and the conclusion about Lemmy’s obligations are incorrect because the law does not apply to Lemmy.

It's an extreme caricature of an example that I assume won't go anywhere, but the point is that it could, and the deciding factor on that isn't anyone here, the deciding factor is a bunch of rando EU officials...

“The point is that it could” is incorrect because you have misinterpreted the law as applying to Lemmy when it does not.

If some Karen in Wales in the right position decides she doesn't like my comment, she could initiate a "hefty" fine against lemmy admins.

See above. Karen could do no such thing, even if she was in the EU.

It's an absurd concept, and I don't say that in the context of tuker Carlson (who I simply don't give two shits about in any context), I say that in the context of us, as a "social media" community.

This is the 5th sentence.

We are subject to this proctorship, this censorship...

This is incorrect because as Lemmy users, we are not subject to it, as the law does not apply to Lemmy.

Technically this would be true if you made this statement about those of us who are users of social media platforms to which the laws do apply, but that would be incongruent with your previous statements (and would assume that we are all users of those platforms - and many Lemmy users are not), so I find it fair to not allow for that possibility.

That isn’t ergonomic. Look at how her wrists are splayed and how her shoulders are uneven. She’s just begging for an RSI.

Am I out of touch? No! Everyone is a fucking transphobe!

Is this supposed to be an ironic comment? I genuinely can’t tell if you’re saying this seriously, tongue-in-cheek, or if you’re mocking the people who have been the most vocal in their criticism of anyone touching the Harry Potter IP.

You don’t develop webapps in HTML5, though? You use a combination of HTML, CSS, and JavaScript (or any of a number of other technologies that reduce to the same thing, or to WebAssembly, etc), to build apps. Of those three, JavaScript does the heavy lifting and its development hasn’t stagnated. Even the spec is still undergoing heavy development - https://github.com/tc39/ecma402 - with annual releases every year in June since 2015.

That said, Apple’s PWAs have historically been behind the curve and Safari frequently lacks features that other browsers have. I’m still glad Safari exists and has a significant market share thanks to iPhones, because Firefox’s < 5% market share isn’t enough to keep us from a completely Chrome-dominated internet. I want Apple to do better but I also don’t want Google to be more free to do worse. And this isn’t an example of Apple doing “worse” unless it actually gets released to a non-Beta branch.

The comment they replied to comprised 6 sentences. 5 of those sentences were untrue or incorrect. The other sentence (the 5th one, starting with “It’s an absurd concept”) is technically true but has a different meaning when read with the understanding that the other sentences are false.

Other replies dive into why it’s untrue.

it now primarily has alt-right, conspiracy and terrorist uses.

Assuming you meant “users” - I highly doubt that the users you described are even a large minority of Telegram’s user base. They’re highly publicized but that’s it.

Telegram is just a tool. How is saying “don’t use it because terrorists use it” different from saying “don’t use a screwdriver because terrorists use screwdrivers.”

Telegram isn’t a secure messenger like Signal, Matrix, the others you mentioned, or other e2ee options out there. It has an extremely limited secure mode that is useful if you need to have a one-off conversation, but that’s it. But if you don’t need a secure messenger and instead want something to replace Twitter, Discord, other social media, or to serve some other purpose, then it’s fine for that.

founder is sketchy

I’m not familiar with the folks associated with the other apps you mentioned, but Signal’s former CEO and co-founder, Moxie, is a pretty dubious character, too. Signal is anti-FOSS: you can’t use their servers if you fork the client; they won’t federate if you host your own servers; they’re opposed to being on F-Droid or even providing reproducible builds; and they have a history of failing to update their repos in a timely manner, to the point that clients built from source couldn’t even connect to their servers.

That all said, I still use and recommend Signal.

To summarize, since the article headline is a bit misleading and the autotldr comment was garbage:

At least 33 times, shortly after the "Libs of Tiktok" X account posted about an accusation about a particular school, hospital, government office, small business, etc., that place received a threat of some kind. 21 of those threats were bomb threats.

Detectives, police officers, and government officials find the timing of the threats suspicious and believe they might have been issued by supporters of the account. When NBC News asked about this, Raichik, who runs the Libs of Tiktok account, declined to respond, but referenced the communication on X with a yawning emoji, dismissing such claims, stating that the threats were by people seeking to paint her as an extremist and discredit her.

Three of the threats have resulted in prosecutors pursuing charges.

The article also gives some other info on Raichik and the account:

• EM unbanned the account and he regularly engages with and boosts the account’s posts
• “Raichik was appointed to the Oklahoma Department of Education’s Library Media Advisory Committee by Superintendent Ryan Walters” earlier this year
• Konstantine Anthony received violent threats by email within an hour of Libs of Tiktok featuring him

I don’t think they contributed to openairplay, but they mentioned in an open issue in the openairplay repo that they had created a separate repo to handle the auth piece. Strangely I can’t find the issue now, but this is the repo I was talking about for that: https://github.com/openairplay/AirPlayAuth

That all said, it pyatv will work for you it looks like a much better bet, anyway. Good luck!

My main experience casting to Apple TVs from Linux is with Home Assistant, which has a few different addons related to Apple TV. Unfortunately most are related to receiving casts or casting music, and it doesn’t look like any support screen mirroring. The main library - https://pyatv.dev - has only limited support for AirPlay, and its documentation indicates it lacks screen mirroring support. If you just want to stream a video, though, then it would be worth looking into.

open-airplay with the auth solution by @funtax (on Github) is the approach I would try, but unfortunately I can’t comment as to whether or not that actually still works.

customers will pay $0.005 per public IPv4 address per hour

That works out to $43.80 per year ($43.92 if it’s a leap year).

today's average IPv4 price tag [is] $35

Seems like AWS’s IPv4 pricing is a bit of a rip-off. Not that there’s much of an alternative for anyone who isn’t able to buy an entire block, though.

There are a number of logical inconsistencies in your comment.

First, “someone who had a hand in assembling my car” necessarily includes the corporation employing the people involved in assembly, not just the laborers themselves.

You’ve probably heard the phrase “There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.” It’s relevant here. To make a profit, the companies involved in the R&D, production, marketing, distribution, and sale of any product, like a car, must pay the workers less than their labor is worth; this is inherently exploitative. If an “ethical” company tried to enter into this space and avoided doing that, it would be outcompeted by unethical companies that exploited their workers. Strategies to avoid this, like injecting capital from elsewhere, simply move where the exploitation occurs.

Any art funded, produced, marketed, or distributed by a corporation cannot be ethically consumed. Art created by an independent artist can be ethically consumed, but only if all of their supplies were ethically sourced.

As such, the point - that abandoning art because of something one artist involved did requires the use of a line of reasoning that would necessarily result in refusing to make almost all other purchases - holds.

It’s especially relevant given that the original post regarded someone who has no fortune because he is dead. A dead person’s fame is irrelevant. Unless there is an estate or some other institute that is profiting from increased visibility into his work, their art can be consumed or criticized on its own merits. That doesn’t mean there isn’t room for criticism or analysis of it with the additional context from the artist’s life, but if such criticism takes the form I’ve described above - if it boils down to “You shouldn’t consume X because of Y thing related to its creation” - it’s reasonable to dismiss it due to it relying upon the same fallacy.

Listening to a CD you already purchased has no further impact on the band’s livelihood.

Streaming their song on Spotify has a negligible impact, but it doesn’t “facilitate their abuse” any more than buying a loaf of bread does. In either case, the companies involved are enriched more than the laborer, and since the companies themselves are themselves a larger problem than just the few members of a band could possibly be, you have to choose between:

• refusing to consume anything and starving
• only refusing to consume a product arbitrarily - e.g., when the problems relating to its production resonate with you or when the problems are currently in the spotlight
• only refusing to consume a product when the producer was the least ethical of its alternatives
• only refusing to consume a product when the problems are particularly egregious (think Nestle levels here)
• only consuming products that are the most ethical options for a given product class
• adding the ethics of a product’s creation to the criteria you use to determine which product to consume, such that you more frequently consume more ethical products but will still sometimes consume the least ethical product of a given class
• some combination of the above
• consuming products without considering the ethics of their production

Saying that someone should not consume Led Zeppelin but that buying a car is okay would fall firmly into the “refusing to consume a product arbitrarily” category.

I had a gym tell me I could only cancel by mail, so I sent them a certified letter. They kept billing me and eventually the letter got returned because they never signed for it. So I just disputed the charges from every date since I’d first sent the letter. After I shared the scan of the returned envelope with my bank the first time they made every subsequent chargeback real easy. I think they billed me two more times after that before they finally stopped - unsure if it was because they were blacklisted or because of the fees they got charged.

In the US, if you don’t proceed to step 3, step 2 is legal (so long as the CD lacks DRM). You’re permitted a single backup under fair use; you’re also permitted to rip the music for personal use, like loading it onto a music player. You’re not supposed to burn it to a regular CD-R (is it illegal? Idk), but burning it to an Audio CD-R (where there is a tax that is distributed to rights holders like royalties) is endorsed by the RIAA.

For trivial calculations that’s still going to be accessible just by looking up a formula. For more complicated ones… I can’t remember the last time I needed something like that. What sorts of use cases are you thinking of?

Is that one of Valve’s rules, or just one of the video game publisher’s rules?

Why would Valve ban you?

If you’re paranoid about this then just make a new account on a VM or fresh install of an OS - you’ll be in a VPN anyway, only other possibility would be if they were tracking the other accounts that had been logged in locally and associating them.

Thanks for providing the least nuanced take I’ve heard today

You have an idea of what you’re buying and you know what you have once you’ve shucked it. The worst case scenario is that it’s not what you expected, isn’t suited for that use case, you can’t find another use for it, and you can’t return it… but it’s not like anyone is forcing you to add an unsuitable drive to your setup.

The user, Chase Whiteside, has since changed his password, but he doubted his account was compromised. He said he used a nine-character password with upper- and lower-case letters and special characters.

Yes, because obviously a 9 character password that’s probably a word or two with special characters swapped and no mention of 2FA is sooo secure /s

To be clear, I’m not saying that means his account was compromised. That bit just stuck out to me.

Vi was just Ex’s visual mode, and Ex was just Ed with visual mode added. Ed introduced modal editing, though, not Vi.