I agree, immutability is the way forward. I used Silverblue for nearly a year, it was awesome. And VanillaOS also looks really cool, but haven’t tried it yet. But I’m hard no on the Snaps tho…

I actually agree. My desktop is vanilla GNOME. I’m one of those degenerates that actually like libadwaita. The experience is unified and gorgeous (or a total abomination, as you see fit). That’s the beauty of Linux.

You’re tearing me apart (Lisa) with these Snap and Unity takes. I’m sure you already know, but there’s a Ubuntu Unity flavour now.

* tips Fedora*

I have never advocated for racism, not here, not elsewhere. I have advocated for freedom. Freedom from all structures which impose arbitrary authority, including half-assed slur filters that you statist tankies use to grandstand as some sort of shitty internet vanguard of the proletaria.

Check out this essay from Cory Doctorow, the guy who coined the word. https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/21/potemkin-ai/

Yeah, since the only true diversity is which particular flavour of a tankie you are.

I write about principles of free software, and you interpret that as endorsing racist comments?

If you actually cared about diversity, you’d know that many English slurs happen to be the same as other non-offensive non-English words; your particular narrow linguistic and cultural viewpoint isn’t the only one that’s valid.

Well, that’s just not the case. Lemmy’s devs have always been highly ideological. The case in point here is their handling of the slur filter.

The basic guiding principle of GPL software has always been freedom. Free software has always been explicitly political, but when you put out free code, you have to accept that it might be used by people you don’t like. Adding DRM, such as the slur filter, is against the freedom and openness of the free software, even if the DRM is so half-assed as a slur filter that any half-competent dev could easily remove.

Yeah, lemmy part of fediverse is full of tankies. There is even a pretty active tankie instance over lemmygrad.ml.

Cookie banner is imposed by the underlying hosting, Miraheze, which is hosted in UK where they’re mandatory.

I don’t currently have the ability to host a publicly facing wiki myself, so the next best thing is Miraheze. They’re a non-profit hoster who do not impose any ads or tracking, so they meet most of the requirements of hosting a privacy conscious wiki. They do have their issues, such as the cookie banner as well as banning contributions from TOR, but despite that, I do not know of a better option short of self-hosting.

I actually wrote most of that (sans some subsequent edits). The whole example of the slipperiness of the backdoors is conditional on being an anglophone individual who supports Western governments, which is most anglophones. It’s not a political endorsement of Western governments, and I find it surprising it’s read that way. If anything, my personal stance is strongly pro-Snowden and pro-Assange (although I do agree he’s a dickhead), and I think that every US president since Bush Sr has been a war criminal, so, I’m not shilling for the American establishment.

It’s a wiki, and the page is meant to be a work in progress. If you have a better way to demonstrate why backdoors are shit, in a way that is more politically ambivalent, please do. The only political stance I intend to come down hard on is anything anti-privacy.

I mean, they’re actively fighting a war against Russia. Seems fair enough.

I have started something like that, https://privacywiki.xyz, where I hope to describe countermeasures for common online privacy invasive technologies and services, but it’s very slow going. 😕

But NATO is a defensive alliance. It can only be invoked as a defence to third party aggression. The only way that NATO threatens Russian security is if Russia has territorial expansion in mind.

Again, I can see the argument for short range ICBMs, but those can be controlled with an arms treaty. Aside from that, Russia has nothing to worry about unless they’re going to violate other’s sovereignty.

I do not understand why Putin gets to decide what other sovereign countries get to do.

To my understanding, every country that has joined has done so in line with their own constitutionally valid mechanisms for formation of international relationships. I understand that Putin is uncomfortable with ICBMs at Russia’s border, but why can’t he handle that via arms controls treaties?