Devorlon

Also, the petitions committee told the Tories that their response was bullshit and they needed to give a proper one. But that doesn't really matter because of the whole new government thing.

It's an initiative to stop game companies (EA, Ubisoft, Blizzard etc) from being able to decide if you can play a video game that you've bought. The example used is for the video game "The Crew" which was an online-only racing game. After the servers were shutdown by Ubisoft, the game that many people bought became unplayable.

What StopKillingGames wants, is that any company that publishes / develop games provide a way for people who own the game to continue playing it indefinitely. This would most likely come in the form of a game server that could be run by any owner of the game, and shouldn't be a requirement that publishers / developers run the servers forever as that would be unsustainable.

For SMS / texting

Connections #396

🟦🟦🟦🟦

🟩🟩🟩🟩

🟨🟨🟨🟨

🟪🟪🟪🟪

I'm getting good at this. I did have a pretty shameful wordle yesterday tho

Are your monitors all the same resolution, refresh rate and size?

If you look at every interaction with a Redhat developer in the context of them having KPIs / set work to do. The responses to non critical issues / MRs makes a lot more sense.

Not saying that it makes it any better tho.

Someone was testing a program they made that links Lemmy / Mastadon (ActivityPub) to other services, think threads or Reddit.

When they ran the program it created all the dummy accounts and published it to the Fediverse making it look like a lot of new users joined.

There have been cases [1] where vulnerabilities in software have been found, and the researcher that found it will contact the relevant party and nothing comes of it.

What they're suggesting is that the researcher who discovered this might have already disclosed this in private, but felt that it wasn't being patched fast enough, so they went public.

I've not seen any of these arguments. Though it may be all downvoted to hell and back.

My main gripe with adding privacy features to Lemmy is that the whole point of Lemmy is that all data is already publicly available and for Lemmy to continue working the way it does it'll need to remain that way. And because of that there's nothing that can be done to stop bad actors setting up an instance and selling all the data they collect.

At least in the EU (and UK to a lesser extent) no major corporation would be able to get away with selling that data, so the spent man hours on allowing privacy settings would be wasted time.

Isn't it a benevolent dictatorship with Linus at the head?

You're right I have no idea what DDR means in the context of countries or geopolitics.

As for the claim that NATO wouldn't expand past the DDR, all I could find were sources that say it was an oral agreement between the US and the USSR. I don't see why the USSR (now Russia) should get to decide what unions eastern European countries decide to join, especially since after the collapse of the Warsaw pact said countries were no longer part of a defensive pact.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/feb/28/candace-owens/fact-checking-claims-nato-us-broke-agreement-again/

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/07/1078929982/a-look-at-the-debate-over-nato-expansion-eastward-thats-at-the-heart-of-conflict

https://www.france24.com/en/russia/20220130-did-nato-betray-russia-by-expanding-to-the-east

Spearhead against what? The USSR attacking other countries?