Ajedi32

6 ms·

1.
by Ajedi32 5d ago
I think saying you "refuse to work for companies that do military work" because you "don't want to deal with moral grey zones" is a pretty binary choice with not a lot of nuance, but whatever. I think both our posit
2.
by Ajedi32 5d ago
Yes, in your reference frame. That's one of the basic tenants of relativity.
3.
by Ajedi32 5d ago
The "I" a person. If a company has no employees, it ceases to exist in any meaningful sense, so if you refuse to work for such companies you better hope somebody else will do so in your place. Just to be clear, the conversation so
4.
by Ajedi32 5d ago
This isn't about the nations taking actions off the table, it's about: > Serious question: should companies not participate in contracts from their country's defense department? I contend that unless you want your govern
5.
by Ajedi32 6d ago
> "someone else will do it if i don't".... (aka your argument) That's not the argument. It's more like "if I don't do it then I better hope somebody else will, otherwise my whole country will inevitably
6.
by Ajedi32 6d ago
I'm using Firefox, can't re-produce. How did you navigate away without first freeing your cursor? I just pressed escape like the browser message said to, but then obviously at that point the cursor was already free so I couldn&#x2
7.
by Ajedi32 6d ago
Because the doppler effect shifts all light coming from that direction to infrared, which your eyes can't see.
8.
by Ajedi32 7d ago
Depends on how much you trust the government's ability to restrain itself once the capability for mass surveillance is out there and widely deployed.
9.
by Ajedi32 8d ago
My understanding is that this is difficult due to DRMd content refusing to work with Free operating systems. Because yes, this nonsense would never fly in a world where Software Freedom enabled a competitive market for TV operating systems.
10.
by Ajedi32 8d ago
I'm confused. Are you saying Graphene doesn't implement secure boot? Or that you don't think requiring users to wipe their phone and install a custom OS build before exercising their freedom makes exercising that freedom hard
11.
by Ajedi32 12d ago
I said it's borderline not-free, not actually not-free so I don't know why you just wrote 7 paragraphs arguing against something I didn't say and have explicitly and repeatedly disclaimed. Yes, GrapheneOS is free, but it has
12.
by Ajedi32 13d ago
I'm not asking for anything, I'm telling you what they are doing, and what they are doing is going right up to (but not quite crossing) the line of blocking you from modifying the software on your phone. To re-iterate: > If t
13.
by Ajedi32 13d ago
For what it's worth this isn't just my "personal taste". I think Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation, at least, would agree with my definition[1]: > Freedom 1 includes the freedom to use your changed ver
14.
by Ajedi32 13d ago
Best thing is it's not just a new coat of paint; there seem to be some very significant usability improvements in here.
15.
by Ajedi32 13d ago
It's not flagged now. But yes, way too many people use flags as an "I disagree" button these days. I feel like that used to be very rare (even down-votes aren't supposed to be used that way) and is becoming more common,
16.
by Ajedi32 13d ago
> Well GrapheneOS would still be free software?!?!? It's the software from those companies that wouldn't be. I think I have a broader definition of software freedom than you do. In this hypothetical scenario, GrapheneOS itself
17.
by Ajedi32 14d ago
> Software freedom is about being able to use the software the way you want You can't use the software in the way you want if it uses hardware backed cryptography to block you from doing so. > you get access to the sources, you m
18.
by Ajedi32 15d ago
Thinking about possible ways they could retain the same security properties without impinging software freedom... maybe there's a way they could make the root of trust default to a signing key embedded in the device's own secure h
19.
by Ajedi32 15d ago
You can't grant yourself admin access with the official build. Only the Graphene devs have the ability to push changes to the OS on your phone. Yes you can fork the software and build a version with your own signing key, then wipe yo
20.
by Ajedi32 15d ago
On F-Droid that's just the entire store.
21.
by Ajedi32 15d ago
Verified boot does indeed make this more complicated, but it's totally possible to build Graphene with your own signing key and get full control over the OS that way (i.e. https://github.com/schnatterer/rooted-grap
22.
by Ajedi32 15d ago
Google already allows web installs on Android, no regulation required. But yes, iOS allowing that would be excellent.
23.
by Ajedi32 15d ago
> What are the alternative shops you're referring to here? In this analogy, the alternative shop that is preventing you from buying stuff from its competitors without a 24 hour wait is the Play Store monopoly. > but there could
24.
by Ajedi32 15d ago
From a user perspective I think F-Droid is really good too, mainly because it only allows FOSS apps by default, which cuts out a lot of the BS you see in Play Store apps. You can go download a random, no-name app from F-Droid and be very
25.
by Ajedi32 15d ago
It's honestly not that big of a problem. Probably some anti-trust legislation can/should be passed to make installing F-Droid and the like easier, but it's already pretty easy. If enough popular apps start requiring you to
26.
by Ajedi32 20d ago
What were they legally required to do after their research uncovered this "causal evidence" in your opinion? Shut down? Cars get into crashes and kill people everyday, yet I don't think it would be appropriate to sue car manu
27.
by Ajedi32 20d ago
How? Certainly not by judicial fiat. I'm not saying I'm against passing laws on this subject. My point is that no such laws currently exist, but a bunch of lawyers and judges just decided Facebook owes $17B for breaking these non-
28.
by Ajedi32 21d ago
There's a law against that. There's currently no law against making a website so fun that kids will waste all their time playing with it if their parents let them.
29.
by Ajedi32 21d ago
So if a person at your company claims you're "causing harm" in a vague, indirect way that's not explicitly against the law, you're legally obligated to both agree with them and change your whole business model to
30.
by Ajedi32 21d ago
If you can get sued for $16B for not having age verification then it's already required.

More ›