I know. I’m from rural Canada. I didn’t say everyone could live without a car, I said “most.” It’s not feasible for everyone, especially given current infrastructure.

But most people live in urban areas where it’s very possible to get by without a car.

That it’s actually totally possible for most people to live without a car.

Even barring actual harm done against the queer community, there really should be a requirement that companies using pride flags for advertising contribute in some way to LGBTQ+ organizations. Otherwise all it will ever mean is: “we’ll take your money.”

This is not a very good article.

It’s full of very weird qualifiers: “not a programmer,” “studied computer science,” “tech writer.” This person is not an average user, and they kind of do everything they can to make sure the reader knows that. Then, while trying to say Linux is for average users, the author suddenly is claiming to be just that.

Linux is easier to use now than when I started using it, a little over six years ago. But it does require at least a basic curiosity to learn.

deleted by creator

Property rights being valued above human rights is kind of a mainstay of capitalism.

Just a heads up: you put the closing parenthesis and period inside the hyperlink you posted.

Nbd, and good comment, just letting you know.

I legit can’t imagine hurting a bee. Wasps I’m less sympathetic to. But I love bees.

Technically ticks are arachnids, not insects.

And also yeah. Fuck ticks altogether.

Xitter being pronounced “shitter” is pretty apt tho

Yes, trans folks tend to be pretty upfront for the reasons you mentioned.

This is just some hateful, bullshit, trans panic nonsense. Some people can’t even handle the idea that they might as a matter of course be attracted to a trans person given the opportunity.

This tech will inevitably also exclude some slightly less normative appearing cis folks too, but they don’t care because they just hate trans people.

I think that’s a good baseline. Not placing unnecessary trust is definitely a priority. The idea is definitely to remove as much of the need as possible for trust.

You have good goals and they are attainable. I wish you luck.

Your logic doesn’t escape me but in point of fact, when we’re talking about GrapheneOS we’re not talking about volunteering usage data to Google. GrapheneOS does a better job of protecting user privacy than any other mobile option I can think of.

The problem I have is treating security and privacy like they’re opposing forces. They’re not. You don’t need to make security concessions to ensure privacy and that line of thinking doesn’t make sense when you examine it.

Genuinely curious: what your privacy metrics (what does this actually mean to you) and what is an organization that you trust?

There are plenty of vendors that ship with Linux preinstalled. Even Dell does this with select models.

And just for the record, the tone of this is meant to be encouraging. I love hearing that people are open to other options.

I’m sorry, but that’s just not how security works. Most of the “security” features exist because of patching known vulnerabilities. What this means in real terms: vulnerabilities and how they work are published to the public. There are people who specifically write and sell malware to exploit these known vulnerabilities. This is happening all the time. If you have a permissive security model, you are opening all of your information up to compromise

You cannot reasonably expect privacy on a system that makes major concessions to security. Security is necessary for privacy. The two are not the same thing, but one is needed for the other.

But also… GrapheneOS is in fact a very privacy-friendly operating system. I would consider it the most privacy-friendly in fact.

I don’t think it’s ironic. Google benefits massively from their projects like AOSP or OpenTitan being open source, and they even benefit from projects like GOS doing some heavy lifting for them in developing bug fixes that get integrated upstream.

The fact that their mobile phones are relatively friendly to alternate operating systems is of pretty significant benefit to them.

Google is invested in security research, albeit usually for reasons that don’t benefit users.

I find the criticisms of the founder pretty seriously overblown. My interactions with him have always been positive. He’s on the spectrum and a lot of people engaged in pretty serious abuse toward him and the project he created… so I’ll give him some slack.

I’ve used GrapheneOS for 5 years. It’s good, the project has integrity, and there really isn’t anything that meaningfully compares in meeting its goals. It’s proactive in that they actually do meaningful security research and implement solutions. People who troll on the project are either straight up bad actors or just stupid.

They do, but not as an exclusive. This year Spotify signed a deal with him worth 250M.

But also yeah, I can appreciate that sentiment.

I switched to TIDAL, for this, for the disgustingly low amount of revenue passed along to artists by Spotify (the entire value of their business), and for the fact that they continue to partner with Rogan after all the disinformation he peddles.

Not a huge proponent of streaming services in general, but some are objectively better than others. Spotify is atrocious. Tidal is a lot better.

Except .410 for some reason. I guess 67 gauge is starting to sound a bit crazy.

But yeah I know. I just think it’s silly.