“Ran” in this context is part of a dialect of English in certain parts of the US. It is spoken that way, on purpose, by native speakers, and is thus perfectly correct.
Saying that it “makes people think you share teeth” shows that you are in fact aware of this cultural distinction and your problem with the usage is not about grammar but about classism, which is also clearly on show with your bigoted description of southern US people.
My only current issue is that I have a Pimax VR headset, and nobody to my knowledge has ever got their proprietary software working in wine. I could try it in a VM but I don’t love the idea of wrestling with the likely performance hit. I guess I could always keep windows 10 as a second OS.
Who are you talking to? There’s nothing there.
Honestly your original question was so vague and terse I almost didn’t reply, it just seemed so pointless. If you don’t want hostility, don’t come with an attitude like that. Do the work to make yourself understood the first time. And don’t just demand citations - you’re not my professor. Just ask questions like a normal fucking person. Ask for information.
Given you’re asking for evidence of Microsoft’s sabotaging of open source projects including Linux, I’m going to have to assume you’re coming from a place of actual curiosity and not bad faith. It’s actually one of the most famous examples of anticompetitive behaviour in history. Start there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish
The comment I replied to didn’t source their claim that it’s the users’ fault, but I notice you didn’t ask them to source their claims.
Perhaps you could explain why your skepticism is so selective before I answer your question.
And perhaps you could be more specific about what claim you want “sourced”. That the switch to linux has a lot of friction? That it’s difficult? That Microsoft has deliberately cultivated that friction? That users aren’t simply failing to consider it? That blaming the users isn’t the solution?
What exactly do you want me to source?
These are all good points and I have nothing to argue about with this comment. I really just wanted someone to answer the issue raised instead of changing the subject, and you’ve done that.
As for the linked comment, there are ways to verify that backend code is the same as open source. Not on a software level of course, but if you trust audits for logging practices presumably you can trust them for checking that the code base is the same.
Also you can verify that a web client is running the same code as open sourced, especially if it’s a scripted client, since it would deliver code uncompiled. You can also check the signatures of binaries. Most people won’t do this, but it only takes one security expert to check and discover that there’s a discrepancy. If they then decompile it and find malware, that’s the ballgame. Trust gone. There’s a strong incentive for a premium service whose main selling point is privacy and transparency to never even flirt with that.
I agree that Proton has made themselves about as trustworthy as any private company can be, and maybe with the shift to foundation they can alter their model to not rely on being the singular operator. However, when you say “good for us, bad for business”, that’s the issue. The reason the fediverse works is that nobody can develop a monopoly on it. I mean, you’ve already said that ideally it should all be open source, so we agree on that too.
I understand that a closed backend isn’t a deal breaker for a lot of people and that makes sense given the client side encryption. It’s just that it is a potential problem in the longer term. It’s an artefact of them having to exist in a capitalist context. Maybe they’ll find a way through without succumbing to capitalist logic. I certainly hope they can.
It’s about the server-side code. If that’s not an issue then someone needs to make the argument, not throw up smokescreens about the apps and frontend code.
You’re right that the encryption needs to be verifiable on the client side, but then why not share the server side code?
I mean if they did, anyone could theoretically spin up an instance, which would be good, actually.
Is that the backend code? It seems like they’re talking about the apps, not backend code. The thing being discussed here is backend code.
It’s not a failure to consider the alternatives that slows adoption, it is the very real material problems with those alternatives.
It’s not fair that a multinational corporation gets to wield virtually limitless power to starve the alternatives of oxygen and create as much friction as possible in the process of switching, but it is a very real problem, and blaming the users won’t solve anything.
Unfortunately you’re basically highlighting the reason that propaganda like this works: immediacy bias.
This story, and the idea of the video, of the woman being raped is immediately visible.
The historical context surrounding this story, and the political context of its dissemination, is not visible. All the stories that were neglected by the media that is cynically using this current story are not immediately in front of us.
It’s hard for people to step out of that immediate reaction because it feels like the story they just heard is happening in front of them. We’re not mentally built for a global news environment where news stories can be cherry picked for their desired impact.
It’s ironic that something called “immediacy bias” is being exploited by the media, when immediate literally means “without media”. Maybe in this case it should be called the immediacy illusion.
Like for instance every conservative Christian politician who was piously sworn in on the Bible, despite Jesus himself saying not to swear by anything and calling the practice demonic. By their own stated belief system they are inaugurating their public office with a satanic ritual.
This isn’t some obscure passage either, it’s in the Sermon on the Mount, one of the most famous scenes in the entire Bible. Anyone who swears on the Bible in any capacity clearly doesn’t take it seriously enough to know anything about what it says.
And the alternative given to swearing oaths is just like… idk, maybe be honest in general, guys?
Yes, and those other paragraphs are the same thing other proprietary companies do. Your opening paragraph is just absurd on the face of it because “inspected” does not mean “by themselves”.
The second paragraph is literally speculation about something that might happen.
The third paragraph is about bug bounties, which every major software company does and which does not involve code inspection.
You just smokescreened and talked around the fact that your opening statement “it probably is inspected” is entirely unverifiable and non-credible even if true. I guess since you started that sentence with “I imagine” then it is technically true. You did imagine that.
Surely we’re not gullible enough to accept “we inspected ourselves and determined we are secure and you should use our services”?
It is entirely possible to keep secure data on a server that only someone else with the password can access. They don’t store your password in plaintext, they don’t test whether what you typed is the same thing they keep on their servers. If the password works to decrypt your data then your client can read the emails. If not, your client gets gibberish and knows your password was wrong. With a secure system your password should never be sent to the server at all.
Now, that doesn’t mean it’s trustworthy. There could be holes in the security, and I certainly would feel better controlling my own server, but it’s not automatically insecure just because it’s hosted by them.
Fascism isn’t some genius-brained thing, it’s just how authoritarians operate, and Putin didn’t invent it.
US politics has always been deeply corrupt, and now it is losing even more of its veneer of legitimacy, which means it’s crumbled that much more.
The Russians aren’t the cause of your woes. Actually if you look at what happened with the neoliberal shock doctrine and the fall of the USSR, the US is way more responsible for Putin than the other way around.
It’s called the 100-year rule.
All the common names we grew up with were retro to our parents, and names we think are just so boomer are probably going to be our grandkids’ names.
Criticism doesn’t take away personal choice though. I don’t know why that’s hard for people to grasp.
It stands to reason that maximising suffering is the best way to grow the economy.
I wish I could say this was entirely a joke but oh well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I think a simple self-reporting test is the only robust way to do it.
That is: does a type of entity independently self-report personhood?
I say “independently” because anyone can tell a computer to say it’s a person.
I say “a type of entity” because otherwise this test would exclude human babies, but we know from experience that babies tend to grow up to be people who self-report personhood. We can assume that any human is a person on that basis.
The point here being that we already use this test on humans, we just don’t think about it because there hasn’t ever been another class of entity that has been uncontroversially accepted as people. (Yes, some people consider animals to be people, and I’m open to that idea, but it’s not generally accepted)
There’s no other way to do it that I can see. Of course this will probably become deeply politicised if and when it happens, and there will probably be groups desperate to maintain a status quo and their robotic slaves, and they’ll want to maintain a test that keeps humans in control as the gatekeepers of personhood, but I don’t see how any such test can be consistent. I think ultimately we have to accept that a conscious intellect would emerge on its own terms and nothing we can say will change that.
Reminds me of my partner’s childhood pastor warning them not to spend too much time questioning their faith, because in their experience it had led a lot of people away from the church. Gee, maybe think about how that sounds. Like, you basically just told them that your beliefs couldn’t withstand interrogation.