but your identity is tied to it for the duration
This doesn’t disprove what I wrote, as it’s not anonymous.
you can provide pseudoanonymity,
Pseudoanonymity is not anonymity, regardless of how any given person chooses to define that nebulous term.
My “pick two” stands.
As for humans passing their token to a bot, that’s not really solvable by any system.
Indeed. Which is (part of) why I wrote, “pick two”.
But the human is still the one with the authority, and chooses to delegate to the bot.
Which is what we already have today.
but your identity is tied to it for the duration
Then it’s not anonymous.
If anonymous and available to everyone, what would prevent people from acquiring an ID and passing it on to a bot, or from acquiring multiples?
Pick two.
No. They chose a nonstandard Python because they wanted to use coroutines before standard Python had coroutines.
Your No True Scotsman argument is not only fallacious, but just plain incorrect.
you can’t make games or even big projects for GUI
Oh no? Someone should probably tell the people who made Eve Online.
Youre breaking a core tenant
Did you mean tenet?
they’ll also support Motorola.
Motorola (the company whose name and reputation has been well known for decades) no longer exists. Its successor is called Motorola Solutions, and it’s not the company making the upcoming GrapheneOS phone. That device is coming from Motorola Mobility, which is a completely separate company, owned by China’s Lenovo.
thus making me wonder whether the Chinese government can affect it
They absolutely can. And, since they have the means, the incentive, and no reason to fear repercussions, they probably will. The questions on my mind are how they will affect it, and who will find out.
I hope the hardware and firmware features used by GrapheneOS will become common some day. I think Sony’s Xperia line comes close. Perhaps the GrapheneOS maintainers should talk with them next.
Here’s an infamous one:
https://hackaday.com/2024/01/20/how-a-steam-bug-once-deleted-all-of-someones-user-data/
I really want something that’s going to be no-fuss, solid as a rock and that’s simply going to get out of my way.
That would be Debian Stable. I’m using it with KDE Plasma (6.3.6), and am pretty happy with it. (I also applied a few backports for gaming and software development, but that was easy.)
Is there something about newer Plasma versions that you absolutely must have right now, rather than living with 6.3.x until next year?
How much are they going to pay me in advance to make shackling my work to their future licensing whims seem wise?
Actually, never mind. I think I’ll godot instead.
This is a thinly veiled advertisement.
tl;dr: The length of a slice is not a valid index into that slice.
Of course. Because Go uses zero-based indexing, just like many other languages.
is to identify the human. This may not even be a conscious development from the company.
Given the reign of surveillance capitalism and rise of fascism, I think it would be naive to believe it’s anything else.
Indeed. It’s linked in the third sentence of the article.
An argument could be made that the first group is about engineering software, while the second group is about navigating a certain kind of adversity.
I guess one could call the latter a kind of engineering, but not of software.
Describing the saboteur as “The developer of Mumble” is misleading, because Mumble is developed by multiple contributors, and Beatrici isn’t even the most prominent one.
The post’s true headline is:
Systemd (along with the various add-on services that come with it on most major distros) meddles with and tends to break critical functionality quite often, except on boring systems where the needs being served happen to be handled well by systemd’s happy path(s).
If the computers you maintain fit Lennart Poettering’s idea of how to do things, then you might never notice a problem. On the other hand, if you’re responsible for systems with unusual or complex configurations, or have need of the flexibility that makes unix so very useful in the first place, then you might very well discover that systemd is a pushy, invasive, poorly considered, buggy, and in some ways just pain broken collection of software, maintained with a level of arrogance and carelessness not often matched in the unix community, and you might rightly come to despise working with it.
Sadly, my experience has been the latter. In the years since the systemd suite was adopted by Debian distros, I have been burned more times by it and spent more weeks of my life troubleshooting it than I can count any more. Because of this, I have come to resent systemd. And I know I’m not alone in this.
So, dear readers, when you see people complaining about systemd, please try not to be like the zealots out there who routinely cry “luddite” and demand proof when they encounter folks who dislike it. Try instead to remember that one size does not fit all, that some of systemd’s detractors are very skilled and reasonable people who happen to run systems that are necessarily different from your own, and have encountered problems that you have not. It has been over a decade. Some of us are tired of it, and tired of talking about it.
Spoiler the actual copy protection removal is kept secret by people who do it.
Indeed. My point is that the PlayStation situation is not comparable to what we can do with Steam games, where it’s all out in the open, with multiple independent implementations, at least one of which is open-source and multi-platform.
(I’m glad there are people working on PS5 hacks, though.)
The former can be had on a system accessible only by a restricted group of people, through terminals that have no automation interfaces. Think of a local private library with a bulletin board: Only members can enter, and once inside, anyone can post using the provided tools, but there are no tools that bots could use, and there’s nothing connecting an individual to what they post on the board. Of course, a system like this would not be available to everyone; it wouldn’t work as an internet service, for example.
The latter can be had by requiring an access token issued to each user. Bots could then be either ejected quickly by revoking their owner’s token when discovered, or prevented early by requiring all access to be through public terminals that have no automation interfaces. Of course, any system that issues an access token to an individual cannot be anonymous if revocation is to be meaningful.
I wish that were possible, but no, it is not. If a government (or any other authority) keeps track of whether they issue someone an ID, then they must also have the ability to connect IDs to individuals. Such an arrangement can only be anonymous if everyone involved is a good-faith actor choosing not to abuse that ability, which history demonstrates is not a realistic assumption.