Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)D

debanqued

@ debanqued @beehaw.org

Posts
8
Comments
83
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Removed threads should still be reachable and interactive

    Jump

  • Difference between hidden and removed and even deleted.

    Does Lemmy give those three different actions?

    I can imagine that something that’s illegal would be deleted in the fullest extent to support legal compliance. I can imagine that an uncivil shitshow would be removed, whereby the content is still reachable to admins but not to users. And I would expect something that is off topic for a community would be hidden, assuming that means just not visible in the timeline but still accessible by users who have the link.

    Is my understanding of the 3 actions correct? Why would an off topic post be removed and not hidden?

    The point is in removing said ‘discussion’ from the platform.

    Does that mean a site-wide rule was broken? Because in the case at hand, it’s simply a matter of a civil conversation that was started in the wrong community.

    Who benefits from the disruptive suppression of a conversation when the conversation is no longer cluttering the community where it was off topic? I can only see this making sense if the discussion were breaking sitewide rules independent of the community it started in.

  • Votes fail to rank comment visibility

    Jump

  • The transparency problem can be seen in the foss modlog. Before subscribing and investing effort into a community, I take a gander at the modlog to see whether the mod is overly energetic and eager to control. Some people like that mod style but some users prefer to avoid it. So if you look at the latest entry in the foss modlog, users should be able to visit the post to determine whether it was a sensible moderation move. They should be able to confirm “yes, this is off topic, so I am happy to participate in this community”, or “no, I will move along”. It’s not about payroll. It’s about users having transparency on moderators.

    In the case at hand, an apparently off topic post was removed from the timeline (fair enough, if truly off topic). Yet it was civil and in line with beehaw site rules, so there is no sensible reason to be as disruptive as to suppress conversation in that thread. When something is off topic for the community timeline, it’s merely an organizational problem of clutter. Action beyond removing the link from the timeline is over interventionalist. What’s the point? It’s bad faith to suppress a civil discussion.

    I don’t know if I’m hitting on a beehaw problem or a lemmy problem. If Lemmy only gives blunt instruments that lack the capability I describe, then the lack of transparency is a #lemmyBug.

  • Votes fail to rank comment visibility

    Jump

  • The nuclear: destruction of all traces of a post/comment is probably only useful in extreme cases like CSAM. Otherwise it’s useful for users to be able to evaluate mods to verify there are no shenanigans to establish trust. A user should be able to see the modlog and then see most removed content from a transparency PoV, one hopes.

    And I think lack of transparency is an issue. I just raised an issue about that.

  • Intel Management Engine (ME) explained | disabling the potential backdoor

    Jump

  • I can’t watch videos but I will say that my biggest problem with the iME is not the security issue, but the anti-consumer aspect. Intel decided non-corporate consumers (who do not want or benefit from iME) can be disregarded marginalized. So disabling iME is insufficient and misses the problem.

    The answer is to boycott iME CPUs. I never bought an intel CPU after 2008. I write this comment from a 16 year old PC just fine. I have pulled some more recent hardware out of dumpsters, ensuring I do not support anti-consumer products.

  • Intel Management Engine (ME) explained | disabling the potential backdoor

    Jump

  • iME can be “disabled” if you go along with all the hand-waving. The nuts and bolts of it is that the ME /must/ execute when powering on the CPU, but then there is a moment in the boot sequence in which it can be disabled. For some people, that’s good enough.

  • This Guy Has Built an Open Source Search Engine as an Alternative to Google in His Spare Time

    Jump

  • #YaCy is an open source crawler that you can run and feed Searx with. I recall some searx instances that run their own YaCy. YaCy can also share indexes with other YaCy instances.

  • This Guy Has Built an Open Source Search Engine as an Alternative to Google in His Spare Time

    Jump

  • This Guy Has Built an Open Source Search Engine as an Alternative to Google in His Spare Time

    Jump

  • #DuckDuckGo makes the same claim as well. IMO it’s a great marketing tactic to say “we have our own crawler” to imply to people they will get some unique results-- but I’m not convinced that supplemental crawlers are significant. They are all too happy to rely on the crutch of the search engines they source from.

  • Chrome & Firefox are a false duopoly. Do we need another option? Should there be a public option? Should it come from Italy?

    Jump

  • Mozilla is not in danger so long as they continue to serve Google. You cut 83% of Mozilla’s revenue and I guarantee you there will be problems.

  • Chrome & Firefox are a false duopoly. Do we need another option? Should there be a public option? Should it come from Italy?

    Jump

  • The reason why firefox and chrome work so well, is that they literally have been in development for over a decade.

    How can you say they work well?

    Basic functionality is still crippled. For example, when images are disabled in Chrome, animated GIFs are still downloaded and played. Chrome does not even have the option to disable animations. When both images & animations are disabled in Firefox, animated GIFs are also still downloaded (wasting the credit of those on fixed bandwidth plans and thus defeating the purpose for those who would use the feature).. but they are simply not played automatically. Great.

    These are not just bugs.. these are the sort of blunt stark defects that do not reflect the quality of mature projects. I mean shit, still today cannot disable animations in Chrome despite bug report 14 years ago. WTF. That is not “working well” when it can’t do something that basic.

  • The Lack of Compensation in Open Source Software is Unsustainable

    Jump

  • so it’s an obvious choice for academia to teach.

    I can’t agree. You could perhaps say Matlab is the default/non-critically-analyzed choice for academia. GNU Octave uses the same language as Matlab. A student who masters GNU Octave will be able to use Matlab just fine.

    IIRC, Matlab’s significant difference is Simulink. So if a class actually intends to cover Simulink then it’d perhaps be fair enough for just that class to use Matlab. But even that’s not ideal. Ideal would be the school paying students to add what’s needed in GNU Octave.

  • A new pilot will investigate the use of Forgejo (A non profit FOSS alternative to github and gitea) in german schools

    Jump

  • Perhaps also noteworthy that Gitea is a fork from Gogs. And AFAIK, gogs is the original work.

  • A new pilot will investigate the use of Forgejo (A non profit FOSS alternative to github and gitea) in german schools

    Jump

  • Disroot uses Forgejo, according to the forge catalog, if anyone wants to try it out.

  • Chrome & Firefox are a false duopoly. Do we need another option? Should there be a public option? Should it come from Italy?

    Jump

  • It doesn’t matter what that expenditure amounts to. Whatever that figure is, Microsoft recovers it. I guarantee you it’s profitable for Microsoft in the end.

  • Chrome & Firefox are a false duopoly. Do we need another option? Should there be a public option? Should it come from Italy?

    Jump

  • Forking doesn’t imply control.

    It does. That’s the reason for forking. You get control. If you don’t, then you’ve done something wrong.

    A forked version of chromium would still want to keep up to date with the upstream project.

    That’s the choice of the fork owners, because they get control. They can take or leave upstream changes at will.

    You seem to view this public option with an unrealistic view of how software development works. Especially in the public sector.

    I’ve worked on software projects in both the private sector and public sector.

    Somebody comes in with a requirement to do something in the fastest and cheapest way possible.

    This reflects an unrealistic view of how public sector software development works. What you describe is how the private sector works. You cannot superimpose your understanding of the private sector on the public sector and assume it works that way.

    The engineers go off and fork chromium and simply reskin it because that meets the brief.

    It depends on the budget. Public budgets can be tight and they can be loose. It’s a spend-it-or-lose-it scenario. If you do not spend every dime of your annual budget, you get a smaller budget next year. So there’s a unique incentive to spend in the public sector. If (and only if) the budget is tight, indeed they would fork something (not necessarily Chrome).

    And that’s merely the start of the project. In software development, we don’t just build something and walk away from it. Especially for government projects - the software is continually under maintenance. So after the fork (if that’s what the budget is limited to) the project does the necessary to meet new requirements as they emerge.

    The public sector isn’t going to be interested in trying to make the optimal browser if they are forced to create one. They are going to be interested in meeting the brief in the fastest and easiest way possible.

    That’s not how the public sector works. It’s a world of difference between the private sector. What you’re describing is the private sector. Unlike the private sector, public sector workers are not blocked from “gold plating”. Public sector workers have the freedom to produce polished work. Their wages tends to be lower than what they would fetch in the private sector, but what they gain is intellectual freedom and creative license. This is why NASA workers love their work environment and employee retention is high despite relatively low wages.

  • Chrome & Firefox are a false duopoly. Do we need another option? Should there be a public option? Should it come from Italy?

    Jump

  • In that case it would depend on whether “reskinning” implies forking. If they fork and exercise control over the code thereafter, that’s fair enough. Otherwise, no.. it’d be insufficient to secure sovereignty from Google if the code continues to simply automatically mirror Google’s.

  • What's stopping banks from creating FOSS (or atleast open-source) banking solutions (apps)?

    Jump

  • That was quite vague and still hard to interpret the trade you mention. But I’ll say generally security benefits from:

    1. a good number of careful eyes on the code
    2. bug bounty programs
    3. audits
    4. red teams

    Closed source has the false sense of security pitfall, which stems from the mentality that code secrecy is a protection of some kind. That pitfall is avoidable simply by not using it as a crutch for lacking security. Open source automatically avoids that pitfall. Bug bounties (2) help get motivated eyes (1) on the code (eyes motivated by generous legit rewards, as opposed to the reward of a zero day in the wrong hands). From there, I see no advantage to closed-source here.

  • Chrome & Firefox are a false duopoly. Do we need another option? Should there be a public option? Should it come from Italy?

    Jump

  • It’s not the governments responsibility to ensure that a law suit is profitable.

    Nonsense. Of course we expect to get a court remedy when a business or person scams or cheats another. Otherwise why even have civil courts? It’s a foolish idea to think the government has no responsibility in providing a functional justice system. Where do you think the responsibility for justice in disputes lies, if not the government? You have don’t even have leverage to negotiate an out of court settlement unless the threat of losing your ass in court is real. Even if you live in a small indigenous tribal community, there’s a tribal leader serving as the “government” to arbitrate disputes.

    It’s noteworthy that you used the term “profitable”. When I wrote the example I had recovery of actual damages in mind. But that’s fine, we can run with that too. When a lawsuit generates profit, that means we’re dealing with tort or statutory damages. Since it would be small claims, we can nix tort. Statutory damages refer to situations where the law sets out a penalty for violators whereby victims need not show actual damages. E.g. telemarketers breaking the TCPA, or credit bureaus breaking the FCRA. In these cases, the people elected Congress to write law to protect consumers, and as representatives of the people Congress opted to codify statutory penalties that are directly actionable by victims. Of course the gov has a responsibility to support their own law and make violations thereof actionable. This is what they were elected to do.

    And a new browser isn’t going to do what you think it is. Any attempt by a government to create a browser is just going to use Blink anyways.

    You’ve misunderstood my position. This is also non-sequitur logic. Blink is not a browser, so if you build a new browser which makes use of Blink, it’s still a new browser. (Hence the non-sequitur). From there, whether Blink is sufficiently brand-agnostic to effectively offer sovereignty from tech giants is a separate question. If yes, then Blink inside of a Google-free creation is fit for purpose. If not (due to Google steering things even from the rendering engine), then Blink would defeat the purpose and thus it would be unfit for purpose.

  • Chrome & Firefox are a false duopoly. Do we need another option? Should there be a public option? Should it come from Italy?

    Jump

  • Yes, these things are inconvenient. Meaning they are achievable items but at some personal cost and effort. They are not insurmountable.

    You’re not getting it. It’s not achievable.

    Pre-web:

    • cost of posting a letter to the secretary of state: 55¢
    • filing a lawsuit for $200: $90
    • return: $289.45 ← achievable because this is a positive number

    Post-web:

    • cost of travel to Washington DC: $400
    • filing a lawsuit for $200: $90
    • return: -$110 ← unachievable because this is a negative number

    Do you understand the math? Pre-web, it was possible to sue a corporation for $200 and recover $199.45 of that. Post-web, that is insurmountable. If you try, you lose even if you win the judgement. Post-web, the only way to win that case is to use the web. You are therefore forced to use the web in the US.

    And a new browser isn’t going to change anything.

    Of course it does. A public option can give sovereignty from US tech giants. Otherwise you have the injustice of a government forcing people not only to use technology but to subject themselves and the people to the influence of surveillance capitalists.