You mean GrapheneOS? Or is GraphiteOS a different OS I’ve not heard of?

two years later: GraphiteOS is now a thing that exists https://github.com/cawilliamson/treble_graphiteos

cc @InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world

The US military takes enlistees at 17 and a half years old. Usually from poor families.

I believe the US lets people enlist at 17 (with parental consent) but they don't deploy them to combat before they're 18.

I encourage you to you watch this movie, btw.

And see also:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_Inside_the_Army
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iraq_War_resisters

No, SVG files are not HTML.

~~Please change this post title (currently "today i learned: svg files are literally just html code"), to avoid spreading this incorrect factoid!~~

~~I suggest you change it to "today i learned: svg files are just text in an html-like language" or something like that.~~ edit: thanks OP

SVG is a dialect of XML.

XML and HTML have many similarities, because they both are descendants of SGML. But, as others have noted in this thread, HTML is also not XML. (Except for when it's XHTML...)

Like HTML, SVG also can use CSS, and, in some environments (eg, in browsers, but not in Inkscape) also JavaScript. But, the styles you can specify with CSS in SVG are quite different than those you can specify with CSS in HTML.

Lastly, you can embed SVG in HTML and it will work in (modern) browsers. You cannot embed HTML in SVG, however.

Ads?! in Ubuntu? Never! They were simply "integrating online scope results into the home lens of the dash" 🤡

(that is an actual quote from the sentence immediately following "We’re not putting ads in Ubuntu" in Mark Shuttleworth's blog post responding to the entirely predictable backlash after they did this, twelve years ago...)

this isn’t remotely how this meme is used lol

shoutout to the person who reported this post with "Reason: Bot meme, you can't even read it. whoever replies is a bot too" 😂

xkcd#2501:

the famous "This incident will be reported" error was briefly removed last year before being replaced with a less ominous version.

I'm disappointed in arstechnica for only supporting their provocative headline (Judge in US v. Google trial didn’t know if Firefox is a browser or search engine) with this vagueness in the article:

While Cavanaugh delivered his opening statement, Mehta even appeared briefly confused by some of the references to today's tech, unable to keep straight if Mozilla was a browser or a search engine. He also appeared unclear about how SEM works and struggled to understand the options for Microsoft to promote Bing ads outside of Google's SEM tools.

What did he actually say?!