Shoving everything into the task bar doesn’t strike me as more orderly. Less so really.

I’m not a Gnome user but I stopped minimizing my windows years ago. Don’t need that if you (a) don’t have icons on your desktop and (b) move your windows over to another workspace when stuff gets crowded.

Yeah better discriminate based on nationality /s. But why stop at that? Poor people are too easily bribed can’t have them. I hear the CIA recruits from top US universities, can’t trust those college grads either. Anyone belonging to some homophobic church or religious group? Better not what if they’re closeted gay and get blackmailed? Anyone in a monogamous relationship should be excluded for the same reason, if you think about it. *tips forehead*

Racists and Xenophobes will try to stop global collaboration,

Yes! Go on…

real conflict that matters will always be the smart vs the lowiq.

Uff… That’s some serious brainworms right there. How do you call your worldview? IQ Supremacy?

Maybe he’s trying to avoid conflict with US government, but he clearly is not trying to avoid conflict with that statement.

How does this prevent the Russians from accessing sensitive technology? Oh it doesn’t! It just excludes them from contributing to Linux, not from using it.

Accusing others from “arguing in bad faith” are we?

If you use netinstall you won’t have any CD-ROM sources in sources.list. I think that’s kind of stupid that the full iso installer even adds the CD-ROM line. The vast majority of people wouldn’t want that and it just confuses new users.

I guess the lawyers are working for the Linux Foundation? Linux development does not need and started without a legal structure. They could tell the lawyers and the Linux Foundation to get lost. Is the US government going to prosecute individuals for collaborating with individuals from Russia on free software projects? If that’s so, maybe wait till that actually happens and see what the courts have to say about that, instead of this anticipatory obedience.

And the rest is some rhetoric parlor trick and/or racist brainworms. How is not banning Russian individuals from kernel development “supporting Russian aggression”? And apparently there is no way anybody would argue against that without being a Russian paid actor or a propaganda victim. I’ve been watching these so-called “real news” and they love carrying water for genocide right now. Their terrible propaganda – our “real news”.

Wait do you reply to everyone using the term Zionist with that? Because that’s some random tangent if I’ve ever seen one, triggered by a single word. Good derailing tactic though, you completely changed the subject.

I’m not even sure what your point is. Are you confused about what Zionism is? Because that’s funny for a Zionist to be confused about. It means you support the existence of a Jewish-supremacist state, and it’s a 19th century nationalist idea from Europe. So whatever you’re on about is irrelevant. I’m calling you a Zionist, since you clearly support Israel or you wouldn’t be taking the time to spread incorrect bullshit in defense of the IDF here.

Maybe you’re confused about my comment. Let me explain. You said:

So the IDF controls the border between Gaza and Egypt? You should let Egypt know their border isn’t sovereign anymore.

Egypt controls Egypt’s side of the border. Israel controls the Gaza side, what with them occupying it. Since that should be pretty obvious, it sounds like you think Egypt, in order to be sovereign, needs to control both sides the border, i.e. invade Gaza.

Which is funny to me, because that obviously defeats the whole purpose of a border. So I’m imaging you as a person who thinks the whole point of a border is that both sides should be controlled by the same state, since that’s how Israel does it, and you being a Zionist, you think that’s the normal way a border works. So “Zionist logic”. This is a funny thought, a person so brainwashed they don’t understand that borders are not like a checkpoint between Israel and the West Bank. There, you made me explain the joke.

Yes they do. Even if they didn’t that excuses nothing about what Israel is doing.

And I guess by your Zionist logic no country has any sovereignty if anybody but themselves controls both sides of the border, which checks out since that’s also how Israel seems to think borders work.

Tons. This on is from Oct 30 in The Nation:

The German state’s show of support has led to an outright banning of most pro-Palestine protests. […]

The reasons for the bans seemed unambiguous: German police said that there was an “imminent danger” that the assemblies will result in “inciting, anti-Semitic slogans,” as well as “glorification of violence.”

Preemptively. Because antisemitism and “glorification of violence” might occur. And by antisemitism they mean things like this:

On October 13, Berlin police declared uttering the slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” forbidden and indictable. That same day, Berlin’s education senator, Katharina Günther-Wünsch, sent a letter to all Berlin school principals offering them the option to ban students from wearing “pro-Palestinian symbols such as the keffiyeh.” “Any act or expression of opinion that can be understood as advocacy or approval of the attacks against Israel,” she wrote, “constitutes a threat to school peace and is prohibited.”

Ubuntu only does security updates, no? So that seems like a bad idea.

If you still want to do that, I guess you’d probably need to run your own package mirror, update that on Monday, and then point all the machines to use that in the sources.list and run unattended-upgrades on different days of the week.

Check again what the parent poster said:

As long as they are not violent they can protest all day long.

Which is what I replied to, and which is clearly not true, they ban nonviolent protests all the time.

What you’re saying is absolute horseshit.

They banned many many protests in Germany (before they happened, at the permit phase). The excuse the authorities give is usually vague security concerns, and they always argue that something antisemitic or glorifying violence might be said. And they explictly define any fundamental critique of Israel as antisemitism and any positive mention or symbol of any armed resistance group as glorifying violence, but only for pro-Palestinian groups. You can show support for the IDF as much as you like, in fact providing not just symbolic support, but support in the form of actual lethal weapons is facilitated at the highest levels of the state. That is legal and encouraged. Saying “Palestine will be free.” gets you detained.

Can you imagine a world where Linux wasn’t directly getting paid by Amazon to hook all your machines up to AWS? You can’t! And how could vim possibly be developed without dropbox integration and sponsorship, that would never work. There is no way a world exists where Krita doesn’t sell all your drawings to OpenAI, how are they going to make any money?

None of these nice things could exist if they weren’t selling out their users, that’s just reality.

I can’t find this in the announcements and stuff. Where does it say that exactly?

Where does it say that? How would this be enforced?

This API instead

Instead of what? As I said, this is in addition to existing tracking, with some vague promise that if current tracking methods were banned or abandoned, this could be used instead. Except it’s not getting banned (Mozilla is not going to out-lobby Google) or abandoned (market forces prevent that), and why oh why would I want some alternative way for ad companies to get my data in that situation anyway? Let them die.

Now if another person is going to repeat this nonsense talking point, which you have picked up strait from Mozilla’s corporate PR, I’m going to lose my mind. Have some critical thinking skills. They are giving away your data right now and they give you nothing in return except a nonsense promise of a fairytale future.

Please I just want a browser that acts in the user’s interest only, does not work with Meta on adtech, and does not think it’s their duty to save the ad industry from itself.

Ok, I misremembered it says “pay” for the aggregate results, not sell.

Our DAP deployment is jointly run by Mozilla and ISRG. Privacy is lost if the two organizations collude to reveal individual values. We safeguard against this in several ways: trust in both organizations, joint agreements, and operational practices.

A full solution will require that advertisers — or their delegated measurement provider — receive reports from browsers, select a service, submit a batch of reports, and pay for the aggregation results, choosing from a list of approved operators.

For the trial, the results for each task will be sent to Mozilla’s telemetry systems, which will be used to access aggregated statistics.

So it doesn’t say ISRG is going sell data, but the “full solution” will have other operators that get payed, i.e. they’re going to sell the aggregate data. Also, they envision multiple such operators, all of which it seems need to be “trusted”.

https://github.com/mozilla/explainers/tree/main/ppa-experiment#end-user-benefit

Ah yes, the hypothetical second step, in which tracking is going to be outlawed (I’m not holding my breath), except, of course, for the third party services that do the aggregating, which will “sell” (literal quote) the aggregate data, so I guess these are by semantic sophistry not adtech companies but something else.

I’m so glad this genius “plan” can be used to justify Mozilla funneling data to adtech firms right now, because in some hypothetical future timeline this somehow can be construed with a bunch of hand-waving and misdirection to be in my interest.

How about instead we have a browser that only cares about the users, and not give a fuck about adtech? Its number one goal should be to treat adtech as hostile, and fight to ruin that whole industry.