lily33 @ lily33 @lemm.ee

Posts

1

Comments

253

Joined

2 yr. ago

Electronic voting, maybe? But for most cases a transparently ran centralized ledger should work better.

I don't see how blockchain (in this case) adds any value over a federation like Matrix.

Then there's CC BY-NC-SA (non-commercial use only, copyleft)and

You could have said the same for factories in the 18th century. But instead of the reactionary sentiment to just reject the new, we should be pushing for ways to have it work for everyone.

Not exactly. For example, you can't make the whole thing, GPL snippet included, available under MIT. You can only license your own contribution however you want (in addition to GPL).

That seems a somewhat contrived example. Yes, it can theoretically happen - but in practice it would happen with a library, and most libraries are LGPL (or more permissive) anyway. By contrast, there have been plenty of stories lately of people who wrote MIT/BSD software, and then got upset when companies just took the code to add in their products, without offering much support in return.

Also, there's a certain irony in saying what essentially amounts to, "Please license your code more permissively, because I want to license mine more restrictively".

This isn’t a well-controlled comparison.

It is. If you're going to virtualize a board game, there's no need to stick to the limitation of a physical board game. So, once you make full use of the virtual environment, you get a video game. If you compare to just virtualized board games, then you're artificially disadvantaging the virtual side.

PS. I also added this significant edit to my last post (bad form for discussion, but it makes more sense there than here)

I think the point of the article is to show that the CEOs empty words are empty

Maybe. To me it read more like: "According to Zoom's CEO, Zoom can't fully replace in-person interaction for work. Therefore, it's bad/useless software - or the CEO is bullshitting." Which is just bad reasoning. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. Maybe I'm just taking it too literally, but I just don't like when articles use such bad reasoning, even if I agree with their conclusion.

I think the point of the article is to show that the CEOs empty words are empty

Maybe. To me it read more like: "According to Zoom's CEO, Zoom can't fully replace in-person interaction for work. Therefore, it's bad/useless software - or the CEO is bullshitting." Which is just bad reasoning. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. Maybe I'm just taking it too literally, but I just don't like when articles use such bad reasoning, even if I agree with their conclusion.

fail to account for spaces critical to trust-building such as water-cooler talk and outside of work events

What do you mean by that? If you are fully virtual there's going to be no water cooler talk - but that's a legitimate difference between in-person and virtual that should affect the results of the study. So it makes sense to me that the study shouldn't try to control for that.

and fail to replicate virtual versions of predominantly in-person activities

I don't think you can. Take for example board games as an in-person activity. The virtual replacement would be video games. A video game can do everything a board game can (with some exceptions) - but it can do so much more. So, purely from a game design perspective, video games would be much better. The main thing that video games don't have, while board games do, is the in-person interaction. Yet, there's plenty of people who play board games, but not video games. Clearly the in-person part is important.

The irony of the situation still seems distant to the CEO. According to the leaked meeting on August 3, Yuan told employees that Zoom the product does not allow Zoom the company to "build as much trust or be as innovative as in the office."

Of course it doesn't. It allows people to communicate remotely. But it's not a 100% substitute for meeting people in person, and pretending otherwise would be stupid. Of course meeting in person builds more trust than video-chats. And discussions on a real whiteboard can be much more productive than on a video call, depending on the topic.

So why does it even exist

Why does the telephone exist? Zoom exists for the same reason. To let people talk remotely. It has some extra features a telephone doesn't, but that's it. It's not supposed replace meeting other people.

Now,

• I totally think that in Zoom's case, there's no real reason to bring employees to the office, and this is just a corporate power play.
• I also think there's no point for Zoom to exist when there are great open source alternatives.

But the particular argument this article lays out just makes no sense.

If you have Firefox Accounts and enabled the Sync functionality, your sync login data (usernames, passwords, hostnames) is fully encrypted once it's created and/or modified. However, Mozilla cannot decrypt your usernames and passwords when they are stored on the sync server.

Source: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-firefox-securely-saves-passwords

Firefox supports a master password to encrypt them with

People keep repeating this. But I've never really heard s good reason for why a separate password manager is any more secure.

However, the bitwarden extension autofill isn't as good as the one built into Firefox or Chrome. It doesn't work well on some sites and you have to copy manually.

Honestly, if you're new to linux, the best way to recover from borked GRUB is to reinstall linux. You can boot from a live CD, mount positions, chroot, and fix it, but I found that more difficult than reinstall until I had a bunch of experience.

Yes, there's little interesting content there. But I think if you get a code for the extra-cheap bundle that's less than $20/year, it can be worth it.

While I'm sure some people hate snap in general, most people simply hate being forced to use it. Or rather, bring forced to switch distro and reinstall everything.

That doesn't bypass anything. Though it runs the risk of putting AGPL code in your proprietary app if copilot decides to copy it verbatim - thereby making the whole thing AGPL'd.

That's the way. However, I'd like to add that when I used Debian, I regularly got leftovers after uninstalling things, especially when removing big things work lots of dependencies. So expect some dependencies to remain.

Maybe it doesn't have to be a criminal conviction - but there must be some process to review the evidence, and establish that the attempt happened.

As much as I hate Trump - wouldn't he need to be convicted for trying to overturn the election before he loses any civil rights over that?