Does "pay for privacy" mean "pay to not be tracked on Facebook and Instagram" or "pay to not be tracked on the whole internet"? I can somewhat see a reasoning for the former, but the latter is absolutely inexcusable: Meta doesn't own the internet, and it never should be allowed to.
Also, I'm pretty sure the argument is more about the unequal enforcement of the law. Copyright should be either enforced fairly or not at all. If AI is allowed to scrape content and regurgitate it, piracy should also be legal.
That's one thing, but I think regurgitating it and claiming it as your own is a completely different thing.
Wait, how does Google make money off of paywalled contents?
This sounds egregious. I don't really have any knowledge on the subject, but to play the devil's advocate, could it be possible that the train was bricked because while it can technically still run, it might have some things broken that could lead to hazardous consequences? Again, I have no knowledge on this, I would love if someone who knows more about trains could shed light on this.
I've been thinking of moving my personal bookkeeping to Emacs, and I found out about Beancount, which seems perfect for me. I was wondering, though, if I could (and should) use it with Org-mode and noweb like the ledger tutorial in Worg. If so, what does such a workflow look like? Can I also use capture templates to quickly record transactions?
My general approach to this tends to be to identify what makes me happy in life, splurge on those, save on everything else. For example, I love computers, so I'd splurge on parts, but religiously meal prep to save on food.
Install cameras in their bedroom that streams to YouTube or Twitch 24/7. See if they really have nothing to hide.
Say it louder for the people at the back: adblock is a basic cybersecurity measurs
Even ignoring the surveillance aspect of ads, which I could go on a massive rant about, Google and other ad platforms themselves doesn't seem to care about harming people with malvertising and scam ads. Why should I care about their revenue?
Same. I'd rather they not exist, but if they must, better that it isn't under big tech's grubby palms.
Technically true, but in practice, it's very vulnerable to conglomeration of power by a few. Social media, for one: it's not exactly a matter of quality to get users to use your platform. Beyond a certain threshold of minimum quality, people use and stay on a certain platform because the people they know are on it, such that it becomes a chicken and egg problem. Other than that, Google have such a ludicrous market share of web advertising (which unfortunately remains the primary method of monetising the web) that it's very difficult to not use Google's advertising, giving them immense power to surveil and monitor people. Google Chrome, which remains the most popular browser for reasons that elude me, has so much sway over the internet that it had the courage to even propose the idea of WEI. The infrastructure on which the entite internet runs are controlled by just a handful of massive ISPs, yet another centralisation of power.
I'd imagine if, say Signal, refuses to comply and gets banned from the EU, one could always use a VPN. I think that nothing short of either a full global ban or implementing a version of The Great Wall of China would allow these ridiculous laws to be enforced. Even then, there will always be ways around it for those willing to go the extra mile.
Honestly, they could at least wait and see what happens in the UK before proposing something similar. They literally have a free guinea pig next door.
It's such a shame though, since as far as I know, the EU have had such an amazing track record. I'd expect no less from big tech, but not the EU.
I wish people who proposes laws and regulations that violates human rights with provable intent to do just that would be fined or imprisoned.
Even more reason for me to never get a car!
I know that some manufacturers ship QubesOS, those are intended for people with high threat models afaik.
I've been hopping around Gentoo and Void the past few days with musl on both, and I'll be going back to NixOS in a bit due to not having enough time to set up either of them. I've realised how little RAM either systems use on musl, though, and I was wondering if there is any chance of replacing glibc with musl on NixOS?
Posted something similar on the NixOS sublemmy, but it basically boils down to the fact that I tend to switch back and forth between both distros, and I enjoy both very much as both Gentoo and NixOS provide an immense degree of control over my system and allow me to go wild and do whatever I want. But I feel the need to settle on one system and tinker with the other on a VM instead, as this switching back and forth is becoming a time sink and hindering my studies somewhat. The question is, which to use as the main desktop system? Gentoo feels more intuitive to me, but NixOS is definitely powerful at managing complex systems, but then again, I only have a simple desktop system. Another thing that I thought of is that maybe I can somewhat replicate NixOS' rollback feature, which is my absolute favourite feature of it, using a combination of Git and ZFS snapshots? I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.
This is more of a personal dilemma, since I keep finding myself switching back and forth between NixOS and Gentoo every now and then. I've done this twice for each so far ever since I immediately started off my Linux journey with Gentoo, making a quick stop at Arch once when I didn't have enough time to set either of them up properly. Both of them provides a massive amount of control over my system and lets me build my system in weird and interesting ways, e.g. musl, clang, and/or SELinux for Gentoo and impermanence for NixOS (it still kind of blows my mind right now). Personally, I find Gentoo more intuitive, but NixOS is more powerful for managing complex systems, but then again, I don't have any complex systems to manage, only a singular desktop system. I'd love to keep switching back and forth, but I feel like it has become sort of a time sink for me, somewhat hindering my studies, and thus I feel the need to decide which one to settle on, and which one to keep in a VM to mess around with. That brings me to the title of the post, which do you think is better for a simple desktop system? Also, I don't know how viable dual booting is, given that I manage my dotfiles almost entirely with home-manager, and I like to have secure boot.
I was looking at ryan4yin's new NixOS book and stumbled upon nixpak, a neat project that , as far as I understand, acts like a sandbox for Nix packages, similar to Flatpak. I've been wanting to try using it for myself, but haven't found any dotfiles I could steal from use as a references. If anyone uses this, I'd love to hear how, and what your experiences are with it.
I've heard that you should be using the appropriate stage3 archive for the profile you want to use, but what exactly are the differences between them? I'm asking this because I want to try doing a Hardened/SELinux/Musl/LLVM install, and there's a profile for that, but not the stage3 archive. I was thinking of starting with either Hardened/Musl or LLVM/Musl. Any thoughts on that?
I don't quite understand how to set up AppArmor on NixOS, and I can't seem to find anyone's dotfiles which has AppArmor configurations. Is AppArmor support not a thing on NixOS, or is it just configured the regular way and not declaratively?
I've seen a lot more people start to use Lanzaboote for secure boot recently, and I want to try it myself. However, I have a ZFS fiesystem, and I've heard that you can't do secure boot on ZFS, and the ZFS wiki itself says that you need to disable secure boot or the ZFS kernel module won't load. I'm planning on moving my root to tmpfs for impermanence tomorrow anyways, but my home will still be on ZFS. I'm not too knowledgeable in these areas, but I can't see why I can't just sign the ZFS kernel module. Anyone has secure boot on ZFS? I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.
I've been reading some articles regarding impermanence in NixOS, particularly this, this, this, and this, and I want to set up impermanence on my desktop system. Since it involves deleting my entire root, however, I figured I'd ask for advice here to learn what the best practices are for doing this to minimise risk of data loss, though it isn't too critical since it's a new setup. For reference, I have a Flake + home-manager setup on ZFS root, though I didn't think to do a snapshot when the disk was empty since I didn't know about impermanence when I started out. I also have separate ZFS datasets for /, /home, /nix, /var, and /var/lib. I want to set up impermanence for both root and home, with some persistent directories on home, but I'm not sure if I should set it up on both at once or if I should do root first and then home. Any advice or help is appreciated!