[-] BluescreenOfDeath@lemmy.world 46 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

And the White House sat on Trump's insurrection for four fucking years.

The system as a whole failed us when it didn't convict Trump on either impeachment.

You cannot convince me that Republicans wouldn't have been rabidly screaming from rooftops that a Democratic President should be impeached if one did the same things Trump did while in office. And the sad thing is Democrats would have agreed and impeached him.

Republicans only care about holding on to power. Nothing else anymore.

And we as a nation just handed it to a candidate who wants to be 'Dictator for a day' as if any dictator has ever willingly relinquished power.

As someone in a non-traditional relationship, and who has two female children, I am fucking terrified.

[-] BluescreenOfDeath@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

Never ask a company to pick between the right thing and profit.

It's fundamentally impossible for a publicly traded company not to choose profit over 'The Right Thing', fullstop. Shareholders feel that have a fundamental right to growth, and if Google's CEO were to choose 'The Right Thing' over profit, the shareholders can oust them in favor of a CEO willing to choose profits.

Enshittification is where every public company ends up, because the line MUST go up, no other alternative is acceptable.

[-] BluescreenOfDeath@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

IMO, that's splitting a hair.

For a browser that supposedly respects user privacy, the fact that this is opt-out rather than opt-in really leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I'm going to reconsider my monthly recurring donation to Mozilla, especially if they keep this up.

[-] BluescreenOfDeath@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

Even if law enforcement can get a warrant, unless there's a backdoor in the encryption then the data stays private. That's the whole point of encryption.

The fundamental problem is law enforcement feeling entitled to snoop on private communications with a warrant vs the inherent security flaw with making a backdoor in encrypted communications. The backdoor will eventually get exploited, either by reverse engineering/tinkering or someone leaking keys, and then encryption becomes useless. The only way encryption works is if the data can only be decrypted by one key.

Anyone else remember when TSA published a picture of the master key set for TSA approved luggage locks and people had modeled and printed replicas within hours?

[-] BluescreenOfDeath@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

That may be, but then you're in the unfortunate position of owning an Apple device.

[-] BluescreenOfDeath@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago

I made the swap after they forced Windows 7 update behavior to change. You used to be able to download updates but you got to choose when to install them. Then they changed it to either they're on and fully automatic, or fully off.

At the time, I was running a computer repair company, and my work computer running Win7 was running a data recovery on an accidentally formatted drive for almost two days. After I had left and the program finished, Windows was all "Oh, the computer is idle now. Let me give you a 15 minute warning that I'm going to install updates and reboot if you don't cancel".

After the second time, I formatted my work computer. Shortly after, I did the same to my gaming PC. Haven't looked back once.

[-] BluescreenOfDeath@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

I'd say there's a difference between renting out a portion of a house the landlord also lives in and purchasing whole other homes and renting them out.

Besides, no matter how nice the multi-home-owning landlord is, the reality is they don't purchase homes and rent them out without making a profit on all expected costs, maintenance included. The better deal for the renter renting a whole home would be to own the home and maintain it, because then they're saving the profit the landlord charges.

A nice polite leech is still a leech.

Sure, everything you purchase in a capitalistic society has profit added to it, but normally there's also added value. You pay more in the brick and mortar store vs buying online because the added value is getting the item immediately. You pay more for the car part at the mechanics shop vs doing it yourself because having a professional install it adds value.

What value does Jim-bob owning 5 homes and renting them out to make a living add to the tenants?

[-] BluescreenOfDeath@lemmy.world 18 points 4 months ago

Betty and Bob are in an unfortunate situation, but they're taking a thing of value and charging money to cover all costs, and make a profit. The tenant is therefore paying the mortgage and all repair costs, and then even more to support what amounts to a leech.

It might be a good arrangement for Betty and Bob, but it makes living somewhere more expensive.

Which is the general point. I can be sympathetic to Betty and Bob, but landlords buying houses leaves less houses for everyone else for a 'job' that doesn't add any real value to society. It just props up someone with the economic means to buy multiple houses and make them a living while hanging the rest of us out to dry.

[-] BluescreenOfDeath@lemmy.world 21 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

So often just swapping the user agent from Firefox to Chrome makes these sites work flawlessly. So they're putting in extra code to detect Firefox and serve a "we don't support your browser" page when they could just... not. And if a user complains about X, they could say we don't test on Firefox, try on Chrome.

[-] BluescreenOfDeath@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

The real issue is it's too easy for Republicans to paint it as weaponizing of official powers against political rivals who are absolutely innocent. The fear from Democrats is that holding him accountable would damage their public image badly enough to lose them seats in the House/Senate, thus giving the Republicans more power. Imagine a Trump Presidency with both the House and Congress controlled by MAGA Republicans.

If you want to know how Republican voters could see it that way, just watch Faux News for a few days. I work for an ISP that delivers TV services, and it's scary how many old people have Fox turned on 24/7.

Project 2024 scares the shit out of me. I've applied for passports for me and my two daughters, if Trump wins the next election I'm getting the fuck off this carnival ride.

[-] BluescreenOfDeath@lemmy.world 28 points 4 months ago

AFAIK, the unilateral nature of TOS/EULA agreements in the day of Software as a Service hasn't been litigated. Which means there isn't a court's opinion on the scope or limits of a TOS/EULA and what changes can be made.

Currently, Adobe has the full force of contract law to initiate this change without any input from consumers because a case about this has never made it to the courts.

It'll be interesting to see where this goes, but Adobe will likely backpedal on their language in the TOS before any case gets to a Judge because the last thing any company wants is for a TOS/EULA agreement to be fundamentally undermined by a court.

[-] BluescreenOfDeath@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

Likely the only reason why the SC came down on this the way they did was because of the nebulous standing.

Generally, you can't come to court without a realized injury. Meaning you've been actually hurt, not that you have the potential to be hurt. It's the difference between arguing "This law may prevent me from getting a marriage certificate as a homosexual individual" and "I legally applied for a marriage license and was denied one". Whether or not you think it's a good idea, it reduces the case load of courts around the country.

The Mifepristone case was brought all the SC by a group of people who couldn't show an actual injury. Their arguments all centered around "Some of the people we represent might be affected by the fact that Mifepristone is so flagrantly prescribed, and dealing with the fallout of an abortion goes against the beliefs of these specific people we represent". And the SC rejected that on standing alone, because it would open the flood gates for all sorts of lawsuits. "My child is threatened by the manufacture of AR-15 rifles by X company because they're used in school shootings!" etc.

That is the only reason why this case was decided the way it was. If you want to protect Women's rights, you need to turn out in your local elections every chance you get.

view more: next ›

BluescreenOfDeath

joined 4 months ago