+1 for Syncthing

It’s not ok to insult anyone. Why do you feel the need to do so, and why are you asking for permission?

In the same vein, my friend frequently tells his fiancé to quit being a f*ggot when he doesn’t want to eat something unusual or complains about mild annoyances. Which always draws hilariously confused looks from nearby straights who don’t know them very well.

To be fair, we absolutely should outlaw at least 99% of all currently practiced forms of advertising and make it so that new forms of advertising have to be whitelisted by a panel of psychiatrists, sociologists, environmentalists and urban planners before they’re allowed.

Alternative title: how annoying people have adapted to not being able to annoy everyone as easily as before.

Nipple Batman made balconies useless?

Removed by mod

Not “again”, “still”. This attempt to illegally silence everyone who has anything bad to say about him has been ongoing for years and years and is only ever going to stop once he runs out of money to pay his enforcers lawyers.

I was wrong about who I was for several years. A pretty unexpectedly intense DMT trip set me right

EDIT: This isn’t really the ideal place to elaborate on my experience, but thanks for the interest.

… with blackjack and hookers.

Termux has been a thing for years.

In other words, the consent of a corporation is more important than the consent of a human being… for the public distribution of that human being’s likeness in an intimate context. Holy dystopia, conservatives are fucked in the head.

He only really wants to be a dictator for a single nanosecond. But that desire renews itself each nanosecond.

EULAs don’t have to say “you own this forever” because it’s implicit. Just like when you buy bananas at the grocer you aren’t forced to sign a EULA that says you can eat the banana or make a smoothie with it but can’t use it to make nuclear weapons or commit war crimes.

Let’s break this down: a product is an object that is delivered to a buyer. A service is an action or group of actions that is performed for the buyer. If I have to keep running my servers for your game client to connect to, push updates or offer tech support, I am providing a service because it requires me to keep doing something for the thing to work. If, on the other hand, all I do is give you some code you can run entirely on your machine - and it doesn’t matter if I give it to you on a CD, a floppy, via digital download or if I print it out as a big book for you to type yourself into a hex editor - then our transaction is finished when I deliver it to you and you pay me. There isn’t anything to license because now you own that copy of the code. My participation in what you do with it is finished, just like the grocer’s is finished when you leave his store with the bananas.

Do you understand now?

No, crimes exist for whoever isn’t in power. There are several crimes that can only be committed by rich people, such as those related to banking and the stock market, formation of cartels* and monopolistic/anti-competitive practices, etc. But conveniently the criminals are only prosecuted when they are the political or commercial opponents of whoever happens to be in charge at the time.

*Not the drug kind, the “a small group of companies with a combined market majority conspires to fix prices while pretending to compete with each other” kind

The only real difference is that Google pretends to be open and Apple pretends to be privacy-focused. It’s the illusion of choice. They’re both selling their users’ data to the same people.

What they don’t seem to understand is that Reddit employees don’t create value, the users create value. And mods are users. The more they make things shitty for users, the more quickly the company will go bankrupt. I distinctly remember stories about killing golden geese and milking cows to death but the MBA crowd must not have been told those growing up.

privacy these days is really hard to achieve

Which is exactly why claims like this should be backed with evidence.

Unsourced claims like this do absolutely no good to anyone, ever. Which means that either right before typing this comment, you though to yourself “time to be a bad person for no good reason” or you’re a shill for some surveillance agency with an interest in scaring people away from privacy enhancing solutions.

Internet censorship? Twitter was blocked for refusing to appoint a legal representative in Brazil, a legal requirement for any business that operates in the country above a certain size (and Twitter is very far from the threshold). Elmo claimed it was about censorship to make himself look good.

Why does Twitter need a legal representative? Precisely so that someone can answer for the sort of shit Elmo pulls on the regular. Or any other shit. Somebody needs to be accountable to the laws of a country if you’re doing business in that country. Otherwise you could sell Fentanyl online from overseas and the worse that would happen would be geting the product seized at the border after you’ve already been paid. This isn’t a radical concept and it has nothing to do with censorship.