If you’re using encryption you probably don’t have much to worry about. The main problem is so many people don’t bother to encrypt their chats and make the assumption that their chats are encrypted. Yes, I think the default should be encryption turned on. But I also think this is user error, so.

My complaint wasn’t sharing data with law enforcement. It was more about whether or not they should be moderating their platform and banning accounts that intentionally violate the policy. I don’t necessarily have a problem with them sharing information with the police when it’s warranted and there is a credible threat, because nobody should be using something to plan to bomb a restaurant or sports game. But the arguments that I have seen (and made) were pretty much “yeah, you shouldn’t be allowed to plan to kill people on this platform with no moderation, especially when the chats aren’t even encrypted”.

Even back when the CEO got arrested most of Lemmy was crying foul on that and a lot of comments I saw got downvoted for siding with the 'police state ".

It’s the same way on the original Legion Go from Lenovo.

Well, while I love Bazzite, I wonder if steam os will run the built in controller on my rog ally x as a signal piece of hardware rather than 5 controllers in a trench coat. That and the fingerprint reader possibly getting a driver. But other than that I haven’t had any problems with Bazzite that I can think of off the top of my head.

I wonder if this will fix some of the built in controller issues (where the ROG Ally/x built in controls are considered 5-6 different controllers).

When they can exit a roundabout competently.

But blockchain at its core is just a distributed database. One that has no central authority, can not be tampered with, cannot be altered, nor taken down if parametrized accordingly.<<

I want you to think about the fact that there is no central authority. That means if it is attacked, nobody can lock it down and rebuff the attack. You’re talking about running a piece of infrastructure using a distributed database. It’s one thing to allow people who have been vetted (so no, not everyone) to feed energy from an renewable source into the grid. It’s completely different to run the entire infrastructure off this idea.

You’d have to build a second grid for the purposes of what amounts to a solar bank coop. Because there’s no way the government would let you hook up to theirs free and clear.

What you’re talking about would need to be regulated. It would need to be beholden to a centralized agency or government entity (local or federal). It would need some form of monetary compensation which means it’s going to be taxed in some way etc.

That’s why you can’t just hook up a connection to the grid and build a solar panel. That’s why you have to have a pre-existing paid connection to the grid. To protect the infrastructure you’re connecting to.

To do otherwise would provide a vector for attack to the existing power grid and the government already has enough problems with that.

Among other accusations, MegaLag said that if a YouTuber or other creator promotes a product through an affiliate link, if the viewer has installed Honey, the extension will surreptitiously substitute its own link when the viewer makes a purchase — even if Honey didn’t provide any discounts. That means Honey, not the creator, receives the affiliate revenue for the transaction.<<

People who go to prison are more likely to re-offend by an exorbitant rate in America. This is because the system is set up to make them fail. Do you want to be the change in the world you want to see or do you want to set people up to fail by making the entire topic completely one-sided and vilifying everyone involved.

Do you want a solutions based conversation or an emotionally supportive one. Because my point isn’t about the recidivism rates of cheaters but about the fact that labels hurt any and all conversations involving them by smothering the flow of conversation. Meaning someone who is in a situation that might lead to cheating will not seek or is not likely to get advice that would mitigate such behavior.

The problem is they are doing so in a way that is directly at odds with getting people to adopt Linux. A previous commenter on this thread already explained that this video picks “hard mode” installation with very little support after mentioning other distros that are much better suited, gives basically no sensical reason why, and basically concludes that they aren’t happy with the result. How does that help with adoption?

They won’t automatically use your phone bill to bolster your credit but they will use it as a form of authentication. That’s the infuriating part to me. Miss a payment? Your credit score can drop. Make every payment on time? Nothing.

I would argue that the accessibility is both perhaps a statement about the quality of the site and about its users.

That’s not to say it’s a bad site or platform. But to say that if your platform is invite based only and you straight up ignore new users requests (even a form response sent out by bot saying they aren’t taking new signups or that the application has been reviewed and denied would be better (suggest that the team in charge of facilitating it aren’t up to keeping up with the rigors of running it. Their attention is apparently elsewhere, or their system is overrun with signups and there’s a significant backlog.

So suggesting it to people who cannot access it doesn’t do much good.

Additionally if the invite strategy has shifted to users providing invites and the place is slow because of the small user base it’s not likely to get many new users that way.

The point of user-based invite is that the user vets the new signups they’ve invited. But the actuality is very often there’s not a lot of getting involved because people will offer an invite to "people who are interested* that they don’t know outside that interaction.

This is a great slogan but it’s not an absolute. It’s definitively based on an emotional response to a feeling of betrayal, and while I can agree that it’s likely in most scenarios, I really do wish people wouldn’t just spout it as if it is a defining characteristic of every cheating party in history.

It will continue to be a problem for moderators because of the way they moderate and the terms they outline to moderate by. They leave gray areas for things that are against the law but that they feel are perfectly ok, but not for other things that are against the law that they feel aren’t. They don’t provide clarity about the law in their locality, and they don’t always stick to their moderation in a way that would make it the same for all users and that’s the problem. Additionally they don’t want to be blamed for anything or take backlash for anything so they overlimit some things and under limit others and pretend their hands are tied about both.

I don’t really do content. If that’s the criteria then it’s obviously not for me. But I do interact with content. Shrug

I requested an invite and literally never heard back so. No.