cultural reviewer and dabbler in stylistic premonitions

  • 110 Posts
  • 315 Comments
Joined 4 years ago
Cake day: January 17th, 2022
  • Arthur Besse@lemmy.mltoAndroid@lemdro.id•Jolla announces "the other half" extensible backcovers as strech-goal to phone pre-order campainEnglish
    21·
    2 days ago

    Thanks. Sorry to see my assumption was correct; that does indeed sound a lot like when they were called OSSO two decades ago.

    Notably absent from the list of things they might open source soon is their current “Lipstick” UI, the graphical shell itself.

    All of the stuff they plan to open source are things I didn’t even figure out were still closed from my 5-10 minutes of research before writing my previous comments. It is difficult to estimate the number (do you know how?) of other small closed components which they can dribble out over the next years to maintain users’ false hope that they will one day have an actually-open-source operating system.

    we’ll see though

    my advice is: don’t hold your breath.

    Sorry if this sounds bitter, but it’s because I am - I naively believed that OSSO might actually ship a free OS one day (to be fair they didn’t say they would either, but they helped us believe that they might… in effect saying “we’ll see” for years while releasing bits here and there) and it was frustrating to realize that it was never a real possibility.

  • Arthur Besse@lemmy.mlMtoLinux@lemmy.ml•And so it beginsEnglish
    1·
    3 days ago

    1 reason it’s wrong to me: https://nosystemd.org/

    Under “Notable bugs and security issues” there is a big list of issues which were all (afaict) fixed many years ago.

    There have been reasonable philosophical objections to systemd, some of which are still relevant, and as that site shows there are still many distros without it, but for the vast majority of desktop users who want something that JustWorks… using a mainstream distro with systemd is the way to go.

    This blog post from pmOS covers some of the pain of trying to use KDE or GNOME without it.

  • Arthur Besse@lemmy.mltolinuxmemes@lemmy.world•Command line tip of the dayEnglish
    2·
    5 days ago

    I can’t really imagine a benefit to --autoremove except for keeping old packages a bit longer before removing them.

    Eg, if you run apt --update --autoremove upgrade -y once a day you’ll keep your prior-to-currently-running-version kernel packages a day longer than if you ran autoremove immediately after each upgrade.

    To make things more confusing: the new-ish apt full-upgrade command seems to remove most of what apt autoremove wants to… but not quite everything. 🤷

  • Arthur Besse@lemmy.mlOPtoTechnology@lemmy.ml•EU's Top Court Just Made It Impossible to Run a User-Generated Platform LegallyEnglish
    4·
    11 days ago

    contradictory to existing laws (eg section 230).

    Section 230 is US law; this article is about the EU and GDPR.

    Operating in multiple countries often requires dealing with contradictory laws.

    But yeah, in this case it also seems unfeasible. As the article says:

    There is simply no way to comply with the law under this ruling.

    In such a world, the only options are to ignore it, shut down EU operations, or geoblock the EU entirely. I assume most platforms will simply ignore it—and hope that enforcement will be selective enough that they won’t face the full force of this ruling. But that’s a hell of a way to run the internet, where companies just cross their fingers and hope they don’t get picked for an enforcement action that could destroy them.

  • Arthur Besse@lemmy.mlOPtoTechnology@lemmy.ml•EU's Top Court Just Made It Impossible to Run a User-Generated Platform LegallyEnglish
    81·
    12 days ago

    Not really. The decision only states that a service that allows to publish advertisements with personal information must review these

    Did you post this after reading only the beginning of the article? Because, around the middle of it, the author foresees and responds to your comment:

    Some people have said that this ruling isn’t so bad, because the ruling is about advertisements and because it’s talking about “sensitive personal data.” But it’s difficult to see how either of those things limit this ruling at all.

    There’s nothing inherently in the law or the ruling that limits its conclusions to “advertisements.” The same underlying factors would apply to any third party content on any website that is subject to the GDPR.

    As for the “sensitive personal data” part, that makes little difference because sites will have to scan all content before anything is posted to guarantee no “sensitive personal data” is included and then accurately determine what a court might later deem to be such sensitive personal data. That means it’s highly likely that any website that tries to comply under this ruling will block a ton of content on the off chance that maybe that content will be deemed sensitive.

    Here are some relevant parts of what the court actually wrote:

    67 In the present case, it is apparent from the order for reference that Russmedia publishes advertisements on its online marketplace for its own commercial purposes. In that regard, the general terms and conditions of use of that marketplace give Russmedia considerable freedom to exploit the information published on that marketplace. In particular, according to the information provided by the referring court, Russmedia reserves the right to use published content, distribute it, transmit it, reproduce it, modify it, translate it, transfer it to partners and remove it at any time, without the need for any ‘valid’ reason for so doing. Russmedia therefore publishes the personal data contained in the advertisements not on behalf of the user advertisers, or not solely on their behalf, but processes and can exploit those data for its own advertising and commercial purposes.

    68 Consequently, it must be held that Russmedia exerted influence, for its own purposes, over the publication on the internet of the personal data of the applicant in the main proceedings and therefore participated in the determination of the purposes of that publication and thus of the processing at issue.

    It seems to me that the fact that the nature of the content was itself advertising is not the relevant thing here, but rather the fact that the website had a commercial purpose is. So, maybe this will only apply to websites operated for commercial purposes? 🤔

    (I am not a lawyer…)

    A company that publishes ads for sexual services without getting confirmation of consent is a risk for the society and this business model should not be allowed.

    Is there something I missed which indicates that the sexual nature of the advertisement was a factor in the court’s decision?

  • Arthur Besse@lemmy.mltoTechnology@lemmy.world•Israel’s IDF Bans Android Phones—iPhones Now ‘Mandatory’English
    3·
    15 days ago
    I think you misunderstood me

    Go ahead and post the same link for Google job listings. I’ll wait.

    My comment was in response to your comments (bolded below) in this thread:

    I was already thinking of getting a Linux phone next, this is helping to seal the deal. Fuck Apple the genocide enablers.

    please do explain how Apple is doing anything here. If Israel wants to provide their military with iPhones they’re going to no matter what Apple does.

    They don’t have to do business with/in Israel.

    That still will not stop a nation state (especially Israel) from getting their hands on Apple devices.

    My point was not to say that Google is better than Apple here - in fact, unlike Apple (as far as I know), Google has actually built AI tools specifically tailored for Israel’s genocidal business requirements.

    My point is that if Apple wanted to boycott a country (which in the case of Israel they obviously don’t, which job listings at their R&D centers are just one of many points of evidence of) it would actually make it difficult-to-impossible for any substantial part of the boycotted country’s government to rely on using iPhones.

    (Unlike Android derivatives which can easily be used without direct reliance on Google’s services…)

    As an aside, while I would not use iOS (due to it being proprietary), it is hard to dispute that (for most adversaries, at least) compromising it is generally much more expensive/difficult/unlikely than Android. So, given that Apple is very friendly to them, the IDF’s policy decision to use iPhones makes sense.

Moderates