cypherpunks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappaquiddick_incident

It looks like Framework only offers entry-level Radeon GPUs.

If you want to do GPU compute in a laptop and money is no object, something from Lenovo's Legion series of gaming laptops is probably a good choice. You can get one with an RTX 4090 in it, and the series (or many models of it, at least) appears to have reasonably good Linux support. (Disclaimer: I've never used one.)

Really?! I have never seen a paywall there, and I usually access it using tor browser (so, coming from a variety of countries).

democracy dies in dark mode

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horned_helmet#Popular_association_with_Vikings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings#Horned_helmets

i think /c/politics@lemmy.ml was removed due to redundancy with /c/worldnews@lemmy.ml more than /c/usa@lemmy.ml.

that's not to say it couldn't be a place for non-news-related political discussions, but in practice it mostly got posts which would fit in worldnews.

it could be restored if one or more users with a good history wants to take responsibility for moderating it.

If you're interested in using something other than Microsoft Windows, getgnulinux.org is a good place to read about your options and how to switch.

For some reason that article doesn't link to it, but it is a real tweet he made in February (and didn't even delete after being called out for the highlighted search terms in his screenshot).

Regarding your browser-based thing: what are the specific capabilities of the "threat agents" (in your threat model's terminology) which your e2ee is intended to protect against?

It seems like the e2ee is not needed against an attacker who (a) cannot circumvent HTTPS and (b) cannot compromise the server; HTTPS and an honest server will prevent them from seeing plaintext. But, if an attacker can do one of those things, does your e2ee actually stop them?

The purpose of e2ee is to protect against a malicious server, but, re-fetching JavaScript from the server each time they use the thing means that users must actually rely on the server's honesty (and HTTPS) completely. There is no way (in a normal web browser) for users to verify that the JavaScript they're executing is the correct JavaScript.

If you run a browser-based e2ee service like this and it becomes popular, you should be prepared that somebody might eventually try to compel you to serve malicious JavaScript to specific users. Search "lavabit" or "hushmail" for some well-documented cases where this has happened.

It’s amazing how so many people here are completely oblivious to sarcasm.

from this commercial, apparently it's a joke but also a real product from Daily Wire 😬

What a confused image.

1. TiVo complied with the GPLv2 and distributed source code for their modifications to Linux. What they did not do was distribute the cryptographic keys which would allow TiVo customers to run modified versions it on their TiVo devices. This is what motivated the so-called anti-tivoization clause in GPLv3 (the "Installation Information" part of Section 6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.).
2. Linux remains GPLv2, so, everyone today still has the right to do the same thing TiVo did (shipping it in a product with a locked bootloader).
3. Distributing Linux (or any GPLv2 software) with a threat of violence against recipients who exercise some of the rights granted by the license, as is depicted in this post, would be a violation section 6 of GPLv2 ("You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.").