This is why DisplayPort is the better connector. Because they don't have their thumbs up their asses.

It always saddens me how much user pain has been caused and money wasted in implementing DRM which as far as I can tell hasn't succeeded in preventing a single movie or TV show from being available on torrent sites.

Death to HDMI. DisplayPort is the superior port.

Back in the day X was a great protocol that reflected the needs of the time.

1. Applications asked it to draw some lines and text.
2. It sent input events to applications.

People also wanted to customize how their windows were laid out more flexibly. So the window manager appeared. This would move all of your windows around for you and provide some global shortcuts for things.

Then graphics got more complicated. All of a sudden the simple drawing primitives of X weren't sufficient. Other than lines, text and rectangles applications wanted gradients, rounded corners and to display rich graphics. So now instead of using all of these fancy drawing APIs they were just uploading big bitmaps to the X server. At this point 1/3 of what the X server was previously doing became obsolete.

Next people wanted fancy effects and transparency (like drop shadows). So window managers started compositing the display. This is great but now they need more control than just moving windows around on the display in case they are warped, rendered somewhere slightly differently or on a different workspace. So now all input events go first from X to the window manager, then back to X, then to the application. Also output needs to be processed by the window manager, so it is sent from the client to X, then to the window manager, then the composited output is sent to X. So another 1/3 of what X was doing became obsolete.

So now what is the X server doing:

1. Outputting the composited image to the display.
2. Receiving input from input devices.
3. Shuffling messages and graphics between the window manager and applications.

It turns out that 1 and 2 have got vastly simpler over the years, and can now basically be solved by a few libraries. 3 is just overhead (especially if you are trying to use X over a network because input and output need to make multiple round-trips each).

So 1 and 2 turned into libraries and 3 was just removed. Basically this made the X server disappear. Now the window manager just directly read input and displayed output usually using some common libraries.

Now removing the X server is a breaking change, so it was a great time to rethink a lot of decisions. Some of the highlights are:

1. Accessing other applications information (output and input capture) requires explicit permission. This is a key piece to sandboxing applications.
2. Organize the system around frames to avoid tearing except for when desired (X doesn't really have the concept of a frame).
3. Remove lots of basically unused APIs like fonts, drawing and many others.

So the future is great. Simpler, faster, more secure and more extensible. However getting there takes time.

This was also slowed down by some people trying to resist some features that X had (such as applications being able to position themselves). And with a few examples like that it can be impossible to make a nice port of an application to Wayland. However over time these features are being added and these days most applications have good Wayland support.

Allowing showing different domains than the actual click target is wildly reckless and should be punishable.

"Oh but our poor advertisers want to use click tracking and it is too hard to set up on their main domain". Oh boo hoo, I'm sure if it is important to them they will figure it out.

Original image credit: https://www.tumblr.com/robotatertot/156736308530/truth

Because people don't understand how copyright works.

In most countries any copyrightable work that you produce is automatically covered by copyright. You don't need to do anything additional to gain that protection.

Most Lemmy instances don't have any sort of licensing grant in their terms of service. So that means that the original author maintains all ownership of their work.

So technically what these people are doing is granting a license to their comment that allows it to be used for more than would otherwise be allowed by the default copyright protections.

What they are probably trying to accomplish is to revoke the ability for commercial enterprises to use their comments. However that is already the default state so it is pretty irrelevant. Basically any company that cares about copyright and thinks that what they are doing isn't allowed as fair use already wouldn't be able to use their comments without the license note. So by adding the license note all they are doing is allowing non-commercial AI to scrape it (which is probably not what was intended). Of course most AI scraping companies don't care about copyright or think that their use is not protected under copyright. So it is again irrelevant.

People are getting all upset at Facebook/Meta here but they were served a valid warrant. I don't think there is much to get mad about them here. The takeaway I get is this:

Avoid giving data to others. No matter how trustworthy they are (not that Meta is) they can be legally compelled to release it. Trust only in cryptography.

There is of course the other question of if abortion being illegal is a policy that most people agree with...but that is a whole different kettle of fish that I won't get into here.

which is supposed to enforce to run apps in secured phones

The point of the Google Play Integrity API is to ensure that the user is not in control of their phone, but that one of a small number of megacorps are in control.

Can the user pull their data out of apps? Not acceptable. Can the user access the app file itself? Not acceptable. Can the user modify apps? Not acceptable.

Basically it ensures that the user has no control over their own computing.

I hear what you are saying. But our society is pretty fucked up if you "deserve" something bad because you bought a product without imaging how the manufacturer can make it worse in the future.

The owners should be able to return the product if something like this happens, no matter how long ago they bought it.

IDE is one thing, Go refuses to compile. Like calm down, I'm going to use it in a second. Just let me test the basics of my new method before I start using this variable.

Or every time you add or remove a printf it refuses to compile until you remove that unused import. Please just fuck off.

I think you are a little confused at the problem here. The issue is that partial updates are not supported. The reason for this is very simple, Arch ensures that any given package list works on its own, but not that packages from different versions of the package list work together. So if Firefox depends on libssl the new Firefox package may depend on a new libssl function. If you install that version of Firefox without updating libssl it will cause problems.

There is no way around this limitation. If you install that new Firefox without he new libssl you will have problems. No matter how you try to rules lawyer it. Now 99% of the time this works. Typically packages don't depend on new library functions right away. But sometimes they do, and that is why as a rule this is unsupported. You are welcome to try it, but if it breaks don't complain to the devs, they never promised it would work. But this isn't some policy where you can find a loophole. It is a technical limitation. If you manage to find a loophole people aren't going to say "oh, that should work, let's fix it" it will break and you will be on your own to fix it.

Focusing on your commands. The thing is that pacman -S firefox is always fine on its own. If Firefox is already installed it will do nothing, if it isn't it will install the version from the current package list. Both of those operations are supported. Also pacman -Rs firefox && pacman -S firefox is really no different than just pacman -S firefox (other than potentially causing problems if the package can't be allowed to be removed due to dependencies). So your command isn't accomplishing anything even if it did somehow magically work around the rules.

What is really the problem is pacman -Sy. This command updates the package list without actually updating any packages. This will enter you system into a precarious state where any new package installed or updated (example our pacman -S firefox command form earlier) will be a version that is mismatched with the rest of your system. This is unsupported and will occasionally cause problems. Generally speaking you shouldn't run pacman -Sy, any time you are using -Sy you should also be passing -u. This ensures that the package list and your installed packages are updated together.

I don't think this is a major "this is why people pirate". Pirate sites also regularly get cracked (possibly more often the the average streaming service). It isn't like bank details were leaked here so the only real difference is that in some pirate sites you don't need a login at all.

Gabe Newell really nailed it there. I buy tons of games on Steam. I also used to subscribe to Netflix and rent movies from Google. But now Netflix has junk and I need to subscribe to 10 services and they occasionally deleted my partner's downloaded shows while traveling because they couldn't validate the license. I can't even play HD videos from any legal retailer on any of my devices other than a Chromecast as they aren't under the media lobby's control.

But say I was to download a movie from a torrent site. It would probably be a higher quality than streaming services would give me, I can play it offline with no concerns about license expiry and it will still be 4k on every device I choose to watch on. I could also take a screenshot and share to my friend (which may cause them to purchase that content!). It's basically all upsides. Maybe slightly more difficult to find the content than something like Google Play rentals, but really not much and the tradeoff is the greater choice of content available.

It is reductive to say that piracy is just a service problem. There are lots of people who will try to save the money. But a lot of those people wouldn't spend much if any money either way. They would just skip most content, or watch with friends or similar. There is a huge group of people (myself included) that would happily pay a significant amount for content if they provided a good experience. But they are too busy failing to stop piracy to bother giving a good experience.

This helps protect our community.

I hate when companies lie to my face. Watching a video anonymously is not harming anyone except maybe a fraction of a cent of cost to Google. If I was posting a comment or something maybe, but oh, you already need to be logged in for that.

The rant comment will be forever changed.

And dare I say improved.

I am a touch screen enjoyer. At least in theory. I like having time to browse, look at pictures, easy access to customization options and most importantly no feeling of pressure. I am not spending a cashier's time and potentially blocking someone behind me (at least there is usually less of a line for the self-ordering).

However there are negatives for sure. My biggest annoyance is that these devices are often annoyingly slow and unresponsive. They just display a tiny bit of text and images, they should switch between screens at 60fps, not 2s per click. Also if I know what I want it is often faster to tell the cashier and let them enter the order (on their more expert-optimized and less laggy keypad).

This is https://www.hyrumslaw.com/.

Basically there are two types of breaking changes:

1. The change may break something.
2. The change breaks a contract of the code.

What you are experiencing with debugRepr() is that you have triggered 1. You have made a chance that may break a user. But you have not triggered 2 because the new output is still within the previous contract. What level of stability you want to uphold is up to you.

Not only that but the EU doesn't want to make it seem like people can come and go as they please. So they will make serious demands for rejoining.

This proposal absolutely infuriates me. This is making it so that you won't be able to browse the web unless you are using "approved" hardware on an "approved" OS with an "approved" browser. You will have no freedom to control your computing. Even if your browser is open source it will barely matter because you won't be able to patch it, you will need to run the approved binaries.

Fuck off and let me use the software I want.

This is SafetyNet from Android. You won't be able to access your bank, your movies, your anything unless you are using hardware and software that is controlled by billion dollar corporations.

They added telemetry. 100% of responses had internet access.