Mr. Satan @ mr_satan @monyet.cc

Posts

1

Comments

147

Joined

2 yr. ago

Middle of the prison arc in season 2 or 3. One day turned it on and realised that it just bored me. Never finished it.

They can prohibit whatever they want, but how enforceable is it? Does Nvidia intend to play whack a mole by checking for translation layers?

I mean technical problems require technical knowledge. I don't see how this is that much different from adding a drive to a Windows system and then having to format it so that it works properly.

Can I partition /home directory in a different drive and still fuction?

Transferring /home directory without reinstalling Linux?

I would say yes and yes.

Best way to partition my / and /home directories?

While I didn't do it on Fedora with KDE, I did it on Ubuntu GNOME. I can't imagine the process being much different. You basically just need to set up a partition, mount it on /home and copy the files, after all /home directory is nothing special, it just contains files.

Now my setup involved setting up an encrypted partition and then mapping it via LVM. Your milage may wary, but the process should be rather straigthforward with some google'ing and messing around.

I always thought it's spelled Disnep and pronounced Disney.

I mean English is not my native and you guys have crazier spellings.

Slap Google SSO on that and you're good. Honestly that's worse than regular registration.

These anti-linux woke ass companies arranging things in squares. Back in my day you'd get a vertical list and be happy if it's ordered.

And that is the different premise for the social network.

You do have the equivalent choice here.

If you want Facebook, go to Facebook. It's not worse or better it's different.

Well Facebook is worse, but the reasons are corporate not design issues (it's more complicated than that, but that's beyond the point).

How is this conflicting? You are a private person same as I, I don't know who you are, you don't know who I am.

How is selective hiding of post and comments privacy?

If you don't want it to be seen – don't post it.

I've never been on Twitter. Besides Reddit I really disliked all other main platforms. So answering your question: I don't care, it's a different platform for different style of social media interactions.

the Internet is forever

My position has nothing to do with this sentiment. Internet forgets, and often.

I like federated nature of Lemmy, I like that there is no "private" accounts. This is a feature not a bug.

I'm not trying to argue against privacy, but what you are describing isn't a privacy issue or an issue at all. It's a design element. And it's this design is why I like it here.

As someone here has said, at some point the responsibility has to fall on the user. You don't need to share anything. As long as the nature of the platform is clear (and it's a separate discussion) the is no issue to be fixed.

If to you that is seems as an issue, well then maybe you are at the wrong place. And if the platform changes in the direction I don't agree, I will leave.

In this context, it's an open public digital space. Noone is obligated share anything.

The part that is discussed as a privacy issue is a design element. It is by design post are visible to everyone, it is by design that comments are visible to everyone.

How is it a privacy issue when the user desides what to post for everyone to see?

If you are looking for a different design ideology then maybe you need a different social media platform.

Makes sense, when I think about it

Oh, I see. TIL

How would you ensure other instances are not sharing your content?

To me this seems to be a question of ideology. I came here from Reddit because this is an open forum with transparent history.

Federetion by design ensures that accessibility (as far as I understand, correct me if I'm wrong). This design principle to me is the core. If that seems like an issue maybe this style of social media is not for you.

What you're describing is an issue with all of social media. While your concerns are valid, I don't see your arguments as privacy issue. I honestly prefer post and comment history being transparent and accessible. It's much like Reddit and this format fits much better with an open forum style of platform.

Don't post private information and it's a non-issue.

Also, can't you just delete posts and comments like on Reddit?

That's what I would've said. Have you seen a newborn? They look like a ballsack with a mouth.

How is this even legal?

I have this with languages. If I don't know what language to expect chances are I'm just gonna hear: w̶̛̫̥͚̎̾̍͋̏̽̀̊̉̈́h̴̘̯̜̖̘̦͈̺̍̾̐͆̿͒̂̔̉̒̀̿̈́̓͊͐͝ę̸̪̹͙̣̣̩̝̖͈͚͋͆̎r̵̫̪̲̬̫̾̓̓̑͊͒̈́̾̀̌̀̋̔̚̚͝͝͠e̵̦̤̲͎͑ ̸̲̪̜̒̈̂͝a̴̛̼̬͙̋̐̊̒̅̆͐̀͆̃̋̎͝ṛ̶̹̫̼̦̦̰̠̹̲͎̳͐̿̋ě̵̜͎͎̠̗͐̀ ̸̧̨̨̖̙̭͈̹̺̪̻̹̟̦̺̰̦̍̾̂̑̓̽̔̓͋́̎͑̉̔̏̇͘ẗ̵͓̙̰́̉̇́̊̌̔̄̅̄͛͒̔͒͠͠͠ḧ̶͎̗̯͉̟͉̘̗͈̜͎̝͙̺̙͉̠́̀̉͑̅͐͘͜͝ͅë̴̺͙͎̩̝̞͕̦͎̝͖̹̫͔̬̦̩́̆͒̄͆͆̍̉̍̈͒͌̚͜ͅ ̸̡̙̠͇̱̙̤̺̀̈̇̂̀̍̉̋̕ͅc̶̢̲̣̻͉̬͕̩̣͇͐̅͛̕̕̚ͅa̸͈̱͇̪͋̐̈̿̃̇̋̀̅̊̓̀̐̈̍̕͠ḃ̷̧͇͔͎͉͇̙͓͇͆̉̽͗͒̑b̴̗̬̺̤̳̈́ͅã̶̧̩̠̹̞̯͔͑̓̓̀̅̀̎͒̓͝͠g̸̨̧̧̱͉̱̲̗̬̟̘̟̩̉̋̇͒̎̇̿̋͌̓e̴͈̦̍̅s̸͓̎͆͛̾́͂̚ͅ.

If I die today, as in stop existing completely, I wouldn't have any questions. When I die I will no longer be, there will be no conscience, no memories, nothing. That is the death I desire.

If I exist after death, even for a moment, that means death is not the end. Who am asking questions? Why can I ask one last question? How can I get one question / request fulfilled this one last time? I can't really separate these things that easily.

Let's not involve physics terminology into a philosophical discussion. It confuses more than clarifies. Especially (with my limited understanding) when the claims might not be correct at all.
I would expect multiple observers to have the same result no matter the distance between them. Such setup entangles the observers and the collapse has one real outcome.

I would not dare to go deeper into the subject as this is the extent of my knowledge. To be convinced otherwise I should see a credible proof, experimental or theoretical.

So even if you have friends and loved ones on the other side in your relative paradise, from an 'identity' perspective they won't be exactly the same as the ones on this side.

We might be arguing different things then. A relative paradise for me involves my loved ones. If they would not be there as they are now in my life, then it's no paradise. But that would contradict our initial condition of ideal afterlife.

This seems to be an inherent issue with this condition. It's rather easy to construct contradictions in this framework. Moreover, as a moral framework it's way too complicated for no aparent reason at all. Accepting unconditional relative afterlife idea either nulifies any moral argument at one point or another or requires to arbitrary ignore and contradict certain aspects of it.

If I get to pick and choose things I accept in a theory, then it's a bad theory.

Because (a) most people don't actually want to do that, and (b) there's social consequences for eating babies in this world.

My point exactly. However, what I was ilustrating is how easy it is to devolve into this kind of reasoning. What moral foundation is there to back up the descision? Most people don't want to? That's not a reason, that's an observation. Whatever morals I construct on a social basis become irrelevant. That's why religions have gods and sins.