feanaro

40 ms·

331.
by feanaro 5y ago
The twist is that this time around they legally are not allowed to do so.
332.
by feanaro 5y ago
This is also the recommended way of structuring things in Rust. It works pretty nicely.
333.
by feanaro 5y ago
Selectively blocking parts of a web page is not stealing.
334.
by feanaro 5y ago
Thanks for answering, I really appreciate it because it helps me to better understand your position. I do feel the same general impetus not to be an ass to people. Not bringing a trash bag to steal all food from a buffet for myself is a par
335.
by feanaro 5y ago
> something the restaurant has forbid me to do according to their rules. Except they're not their rules. My computer, my rules. I really wish you'd chosen to respond to my technical question instead, though.
336.
by feanaro 5y ago
The difference is DRM is a technical-only measure in most countries. The services employing DRM are scumbags, but they're welcome to try it. That doesn't mean that ridiculous positions such as trying to legally forbid access to a
337.
by feanaro 5y ago
It's a cute analogy, except it fails to explain why youtube-dl is the garbage bag in this instance. If we step away from analogies for a bit, are you actually arguing that we shouldn't have the ability to modify the markup and the
338.
by feanaro 5y ago
Surely the fact that a single blemish exists does not imply that we should just curl up in a hole and admit defeat. The fact that Widevine exists does little to damage the core of the above argument.
339.
by feanaro 5y ago
We're not being a little too cute. If you are supposed to be able to access YouTube from Firefox or Chrome, then you are also supposed to be able to access it via youtube-dl, given all of those are HTTP clients. Saying otherwise would
340.
by feanaro 5y ago
> 1) why should nVidia trust the attackers? nVdia might give in, and the files might still be leaked. They might, but they will surely be released if they choose to ignore the attackers. Given the choices between a bad outcome happening
341.
by feanaro 5y ago
There is no guarantee that the complete archive won't at some point be released, that is true, but there is a sizeable, reasonable chance. The alternative is that they are definitely released. Given this, what is the game theoretical
342.
by feanaro 5y ago
If you're in certain countries you can't do anything with the leaked information officially . But you can still look at it and learn from it without telling anyone. As long as you conceal the trail, which shouldn't be that
343.
by feanaro 5y ago
So you think nVidia will want to see the release of all of its chip schematics? That's an interesting position, but I fail to see how that would be a good idea for them. Perhaps if they are hoping the hackers will be apprehended before
344.
by feanaro 5y ago
There have been instances of terminal vulnerabilities via terminal escape codes, as bad as an RCE in iterm2: https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2019/10/09/iterm2-critical... . I suppose the OP is thinking
345.
by feanaro 5y ago
Getting internal server error for many ordinary requests. I'm not able to discern a pattern. An example is `rip 'q=zelda'`.
346.
by feanaro 5y ago
The fact that they don't share those 1.78 trillion not even approximately equally.
347.
by feanaro 5y ago
Exactly this. Trust must remain configurable by many instead of by a single authority.
348.
by feanaro 5y ago
Well, because as you can see, this law is already introducing strife where there should be none, by unskillfully requiring something that's not useful. What problem is this supposed to be solving again? By rolling out QWAC, we would be
349.
by feanaro 5y ago
This sounds like you're giving preferential treatment to companies over non-companies. Why would companies get preferential treatment on the internet? I don't think that's a good idea.
350.
by feanaro 5y ago
> Probably browsers will remove it anyway and deal with EU in court if they make a stink about it. So how about we stop this proposal in its track right now instead?
351.
by feanaro 5y ago
Well that just means wlroots is the standard in the sense you had with X, not Wayland. I too consider this unfortunate and a weird design choice, but at least we have this option on stabilizing on wlroots and ignoring everything else as som
352.
by feanaro 5y ago
> Like it or not, that's probably where the industry will be in 5 years. You might not like it, but X-as-a-service make way more money for the company, and shareholders. Do you like it? I kind of hate this modern trend of taking t
353.
by feanaro 5y ago
If you want federation, I would suggest you don't use the "essentially federated" Slack, but the actually federated Matrix.
354.
by feanaro 5y ago
Yes, but how would you then inanely riff on psychology, which all the cool kids are doing nowadays?
355.
by feanaro 5y ago
> But that's what they've tested. https://pre-commit.com/ helps with that. > It would be quite fun if we could have hierarchical commits, so I could add bits to a commit without having to squash/amend.
356.
by feanaro 5y ago
It's better in terms of configurability. It's going to become even better when Manifest V3 comes around because ad blockers on Chrome will no longer be as effective.
357.
by feanaro 5y ago
But isn't accessing bookmarks exactly the same in Chrome(ium)? Firefox: 1. Hamburger menu > 2. Bookmarks > 3. Manage bookmarks Chrome(ium): 1. Three-dot menu > 2. Bookmarks > 3. Bookmark manager In both cases you get a list
358.
by feanaro 5y ago
I'm on Arch Linux.
359.
by feanaro 5y ago
You do have to use the command-line and there is a single hoop: the `--new-instance` flag. I agree the situation could be made "normal" user friendly and it isn't right now.
360.
by feanaro 5y ago
No, but you'll get detained and then you'll like your freedom back so you'll try to walk away, but they won't let you. If you insist, you'll eventually get shot.

More ›