Why are you posting ads for a website?? Shouldn’t you just post the content here so you’re not advertising???

Just jump to something like Bazzite and get rid of windows, don’t wait unless you have to

But they got the republicans elected, that’s all that matters. They don’t care about what happens after they get into power

The difference between MicroSlop and Micro$haft or Crapple is that Microsoft is actively slopifying their product. And this isn’t just some PC vs Mac slapfight where people are coming up with insulting names, Microsoft actively bragged about pooping out 30% of code with AI and we have MONTHS of news articles about them fucking up their updates even more than usual (and I’ve been supporting MS products for close to 2 decades).

There’s a reason MicroSlop responded to that and not Micro$haft. Because every big company gives their customers the shaft, but not many are actively sabotaging their product to quite the same extent as they are, so the (accurate) name really hurts the company’s brand because it’s an accurate description of their current output.

It worked with Bro Joegan

If they put d9 in it I’d still probably do it.

The only April fools joke I really encountered yesterday was modded Minecraft refused to launch until I changed the date to today. Too bad I didn’t figure it out until late in the day and my kid was upset they didn’t get to play because the stupid thing stopped loading right before the main menu

A lot of websites actively interfere the reader from accessing them by pestering them with their “apps” these days. I don’t know where this fascination with getting everyone to download your app comes from.

I’m kinda surprised the author is able to put together why the ad experience is bad, even directly calling out the data ining of the sites, but completely misses that apps are even better at mining your data

Then go make it yourself, or use an AI to pretend you have the talent to make art, and then you can choose to not put a name on it.

Sure. But posting the artist’s name/watermark isn’t an ad, it’s their artwork.

Ban posters who modify artist’s work maliciously to remove attribution.

Better idea, how about a rule to ban people who intentionally remove them?

We’d get better content, and nothing of value would be lost. Least of which is AI slop to remove water marks

paying a daily subscription to breathe.

Nazis say that you are required to let Nazis be your customers. Also that you don’t have to serve people you don’t want to when it fits their narrative.

with intent to render such […] unfit to be reissued

This isn’t trying to take it out of circulation tho, so that probably wouldn’t apply. They’d have to make an argument that effectively goes against the first amendment to say you can’t write on currency you plan to spend.

Ooooooh, I’ve always wanted a monorail!

They’re probably assuming the chats aren’t encrypted because telegram doesn’t encrypt those. Source

Multi-device End-to-end encrypted chats are a mess

The concept of End-to-End Encryption has no limits for the number of communicating devices. However, if you want to access your end-to-end encrypted chats from multiple devices, you’re facing many technical difficulties, especially when it comes to connecting new devices, loading chat history and restoring backups.

Most of our competitors (notably, Whatsapp and iMessage) solve these problems in ways that make their end-to-end encryption useless (this is a big topic, so requires a separate manual [poster note, that link goes to a ‘manual’ that hasn’t been filled out lol]). To solve them in a secure way, you’d have to sacrifice usability and some of the features you’re used to – the result would never be as fluent and simple as what we offer in Cloud Chats.

Telegram says they don’t encrypt them and tries to imply that people who actually know how to use cryptography failed to solve this problem because they couldn’t solve it with their shitty self rolled ‘encryption’ algo that hasn’t been peer reviewed (unlike the signal protocol)

This paper released last summer makes the argument that quantum computing is in a similar state, and that any of the claimed numbers that were factored by quantum computing above 21 have basically been bullshit. I was listening to Security Now episode 1034 recently and they discussed the paper in reasonably understandable terms, but basically it boils down to factoring big numbers by picking numbers that are disallowed by modern algorithms because they’re binary weak primes.

Here’s hoping those tarrifs all get 401’d

Wait wait wait wait wait wait…

Are you trying to tell me that the activists who said for decades that legalizing would reduce youth use because it would be regulating the product and making it harder for the black market to thrive were right this whole time???

Color me fucking shocked. Next you’re going to tell me that it was really just criminalized because of racism and the right wanting another way to attack and imprison their opponents and minorities.

deleted by creator