AmbitiousProcess (they/them)

Only if other reviews are missing major context.

If a product I bought a year ago breaks, but everyone else wrote their review the day after they got it and said it was great, I’m gonna write a review telling you it might not last as long as you think, for example.

Hence why this article is about them leaving the openly Nazi billionaire’s platform while remaining on other platforms that are mainstream and still provide a lot of reach :)

I totally recommend just clicking through random pages on there for a good 10 minutes or so. You’ll be surprised at how many random, cool, interesting things you find that you’d probably never see otherwise in a million years. (also an AMAZING place to find small blogs to add to your RSS reader of choice)

They feed a lot of this into their main search index if you pay for Kagi search too, so a lot of these sites will appear higher than they would on Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo, etc, if their content is relevant. Especially fediverse sources.

The email dump has an email in it that’s ALL in Papyrus 😭

(File 2010-03-16 03-04-26 Sugar.eml)

Only when:

• The art isn’t significantly tied to the artist’s views/publicly spouted opinions/decisions/etc (e.g. if the artist is a Nazi, you can’t really separate an artwork they made with a swastika from the artist. If they painted a nice flower field 10 years ago, it’s hard to say that it is likely to carry any Nazi-adjacent themes, and is probably pretty distinct from whatever they’d make if they made art now)
• Consuming the art doesn’t financially support the artist (so in the case of J.K Rowling, you could pirate the books, or read a copy you already have, but you can’t buy new ones (or get them on loan from somewhere that could compensate her, like a library), pay to stream the movies, go to a theme park based on the work, or buy any licensed merchandise, assuming you want to not give her money and thus separate her from the work)
• Your consumption of the art won’t indirectly cause someone else to benefit the artist (e.g. you wear a shirt you already own with Harry Potter on it, and it reminds someone else of the series and they buy the books)

You could make that argument about any tool Wikipedia editors use. Why should they need spellcheck? They were typing words just fine before.

…except it just makes it easier to spot errors or get little suggestions on how you could reword something, and thus makes the whole process a little smoother.

It’s not strictly necessary, but this could definitely be helpful to people for translation and proofreading. Doesn’t have to be something people are wholly reliant on to still be beneficial to their ability to edit Wikipedia.

“More secure” is a minefield of marketing and intentionally misleading the populace.

Here is the popular phone cracking company Cellebrite’s leaked slides showing them telling the people they’re selling their tools to that they can’t as easily (if at all, depending on device state) crack GrapheneOS as they can stock Android:

https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/112462758257739953 (This is just a well-summarized and explained post from GrapheneOS themselves, but the original leak was independent of them, and the slides and final interpretation are no different from what GrapheneOS is showing, thus I wouldn’t consider this just “marketing”)

Objectively, if you have a GrapheneOS phone, and you plug it into a Cellebrite machine, it will not have its data extracted if it’s before first unlock, or after first unlock but on the lock screen. (as long as you’ve updated your security patches since like 2022, which most GrapheneOS phones will be) A stock Android phone, or even many iPhones were not as resistant to brute forces or even full file system extractions as a Pixel with GrapheneOS.

GrapheneOS also has additional features that can make the cracking process even more difficult, such as disabling USB even after first unlock when on the lock screen, automatically rebooting after set period to return the phone to BFU state, or setting a duress PIN that wipes the phone, which could be triggered via a brute force before the real PIN is guessed.

Also, in case you want to look at the diagrams in the post more since they don’t really explain all the acronyms, here’s a key:

• BFU (Before first unlock - essentially when you’ve restarted the phone but not put in the PIN/password yet. When fingerprint unlock will not work)
• AFU (After first unlock - after you’ve put in your PIN/Password, fingerprint gets enabled at this point. Using the “Lockdown” button from the power menu on GrapheneOS disables fingerprint and appears to be BFU, but isn’t fully in BFU state and should still be considered AFU just in case)
• FFS (Full Filesystem extraction, essentially dumping literally every single possible file, app data, etc)
• BF (Brute Force, basically just spamming the PIN/Password to try and crack it. GrapheneOS is essentially never vulnerable to this due to the Pixel’s secure element, and it’s the same for newer Pixels with stock Android too, though those tend to still be vulnerable to FFS)
• “Up to late 2022 SPL” (“Secondary Program Loader” version, which most GrapheneOS phones will have updated by now as long as they’re running a GrapheneOS version released after 2022. As you can probably tell, 2022 is referencing the (late part of the) year that version was from. It’s essentially what helps to load programs on the device)

I forget which country it was, but Graphene was specifically listed as being used by criminals/drug dealers.

You might be referring to Catalonia, Spain?

In their case, it was more about Pixel phones in general being used by criminals, and GrapheneOS being their OS of choice which made cracking them harder, rather than GrapheneOS itself being considered criminal or suspicious, but I get where you’re coming from.

You could also be referring to the UK, but that was regarding a journalist with GrapheneOS, but the charge was refusing to unlock his phones. And yes, I said phones, because he was also carrying an iPhone, and they wanted that password too. So in this case the charge wasn’t GrapheneOS-specific.

There’s also France, who was going after GrapheneOS because they wanted an encryption backdoor, but GrapheneOS just said no, so they told police to consider any Pixel with GrapheneOS “suspicious”, but not to consider it a crime in itself. (nor did they have the legal authority to do so) GrapheneOS actually migrated all their server infrastructure out of France as a result of this.

The point is that now, using Graphene, counts against you for the purposes of pressing charges or taking you to a black site.

Generally speaking, even in those areas, this (fortunately) just isn’t true. You are more likely to be considered suspicious in Catalonia if you have… a Pixel, GrapheneOS or not. You’re likely to be criminally charged in the UK… if you don’t give up your password, GrapheneOS or not. And you’re likely to be considered “suspicious” in France… but can’t be charged with anything for it, and the only way they’ll know if you have GrapheneOS installed is if you were already arrested for something else and had your phone seized.

Practically speaking, it’s better to support an OS that protects your data, but could increase the risk of you getting in trouble for protecting your data, than an OS that doesn’t protect your data, and gives it all to the authorities, making whether or not you’re considered criminal pointless. After all, you could voluntarily unlock your GrapheneOS phone in any of these jurisdictions and stop facing any of these possible consequences, and it would carry the same implication as a non-GrapheneOS phone that does it whether you provide your PIN/password or not.

So this:

That is an extra charge.

Just isn’t (at least currently) the case, since no regions currently doing anything against GrapheneOS have made the act of having GrapheneOS installed in itself a crime.

Not to say this couldn’t change, and you’re totally valid in assuming that governments will try to push this, but at least currently, using GrapheneOS will not in itself increase the chance of you going to a black site.

Don’t forget Kagi! (though it isn’t technically comparable to the others since it’s a paid, but without ads one)

Why are they spending money on infrastructure and support but getting no revenue in return?

I already addressed this in my comment. If you want me to expand on how they most definitely can make money from something like this, Mozilla:

• Gets revenue from their paid VPN service that already exists, and it would be a way to convert users to a revenue source, since the thing being taken away after the data cap is itself a VPN
• Gets donations, which more users with a good opinion of the browser will bring
• Has sponsored integrations, which pay money on a per-click basis, (e.g. AccuWeather integration where Mozilla gets paid if you click through to their website, pinned sites like Amazon that appear on the new tab page for new users) and ones that are influenced by overall number of Firefox users (e.g. Google’s deal to be the default search engine when you first install Firefox)

If this feature brings in new users, they can get revenue from any of these 3 sources, especially the sponsored listings. If this feature is just a benefit for existing users that might have already changed all their defaults and disabled sponsored content, it increases the chance of VPN conversions and donations, and increases the likelihood someone will recommend Firefox to a friend.

Either they are okay with losing even more money, OR they plan to enshittify.

Or they’re trying to get and retain users, which helps them make money from existing revenue options without having to make anything worse, while also providing a beneficial feature. I’m not saying there’s no chance they’ll enshittify, but I don’t think unconditional pessimism is the right move here.

For this and many many other reasons, it’s time to switch to a privacy fork like LibreWolf or WaterFox

I can’t speak to Waterfox myself, but I would agree with saying LibreWolf is a good idea if you care.

I just personally haven’t bothered switching since Firefox currently works fine for me, and anything they’ve done I dislike is fairly easy to just disable in settings and never see again.

For everyone who thinks this is just gonna be a way for them to somehow sell your data, I don’t think so.

Think about it like this. You can buy a VPN plan for as little as $2 a month or less depending on the provider if you have a long-term commitment (e.g. 1-2 years). That pricing includes margin.

Firefox can essentially operate at lower prices than that, because they:

• Don’t have to charge themselves an extra margin
• Have an economy of scale since they’re not just one user paying for themselves, they’re a company paying for thousands at a time
• Cap their per-user cost well below what most users actually use. (I used over 300 GB of data in the last 30 days just on my PC, almost all through Firefox, with even more on Firefox on my phone.)

I would bet this would probably cost Mozilla less than a dollar per user per month, and that’s also assuming all those users are continuing to use the VPN service over time, maxing out their data limit, but refusing to pay for anything else after.

Meanwhile, Mozilla conveniently sells their own VPN service provided through Mullvad, which they make a profit on.

If a user cares enough to continue using the VPN because they want a VPN, they’ll blow through the data limit and be more inclined than the average user to pay for Mozilla’s option. (rather than going “I guess I’ll only care about my privacy for 5 days out of the month”)

If a user doesn’t care enough to continue using the VPN because they were just trying it out, but they chose to use Firefox because it had a free VPN bundled in, which sold them on it over another browser, Mozilla just paid less than an ad would cost for a conversion.

And at the end of the day, it also just helps keep up their reputation as a browser that respects your privacy, which makes it easier to promote the browser elsewhere, in ads or otherwise.

This feels more like a marketing ploy that’s likely to just save money on ad conversions for new Firefox users, and increase Mozilla VPN conversions, rather than something they’re gonna use to super secretly siphon off your data and sell it to advertisers.

Always get a printer that doesn’t require cartridges. They’re a locked-down, economically exploitative nightmare. Ink tank ones are best, always avoid HP, they’re just a horrible company. In my experience, Canon is good, but I haven’t tried every brand. Most ink tank printers support colors alongside black without being much more expensive, and I think it’s a good idea to have that option even if you don’t currently print with black.

For stickers, a few bits of advice as someone who’s made their own stickers for a while:

• If the stickers you’re making will ever have ANY contact whatsoever with water, use vinyl sticker paper. Regular sticker paper will let the water soak in and cause it to bleed, and even if it’s laminated with an adhesive laminate sheet on top, the water will just seep under. (you may still want to laminate vinyl sticker sheets though, as they can have that very slightly sticky texture of traditional glossy photo paper, which I personally find horrible to the touch)
• Printers will use either pigment, dye, or a combination of both pigment and dye-based inks (e.g. dye-based for color, pigment-based for black. Pigment-based ink produces deeper blacks, so even if the rest of a printer’s ink is dye-based, the black will often be pigment-based). Not all vinyl sticker paper supports pigment or dye-based inks, so if you can, get a printer that uses all one kind. (pigment is usually more expensive, dye is usually cheaper. Dye produces more vibrant colors, pigment lasts longer, and is more water and UV resistant)
• Most vinyl sticker paper supports pigment-based inks, some support both dye and pigment, and some only support dye. If the product listing or packaging doesn’t say which type it supports, avoid it. The last thing you want is a sheet of sticker paper that at least 1 entire color will always smudge off on. (I had the misfortune of getting sticker paper that supports all the color inks in my printer, but not the color black.)
• If you plan on cutting the stickers yourself rather than with something like a Cricut machine, get both an Exacto knife and a good pair of scissors. Scissors for larger cuts (e.g. splitting a sheet into a grid), Exacto knife for rounded/custom shaped cuts, or if you just find it easier than scissors for some shapes. Fiskars’ scissors are great and last an incredibly long time in my experience, at least the titanium-coated ones. (the same pair has been in my house for probably at least 2 decades at this point)
• Always let your sticker paper sit for at least 2-5 minutes after printing before doing anything to it. Even if you’re using the right kind of paper for the ink your printer has, there’s always a chance it can smudge a bit. You might need to tweak some printer settings if your paper always smudges to reduce the amount of ink being used when you print stickers.

What I hate is that as much as I try to repair things, I just can’t do it because of companies not giving a fuck.

My monitor has been regularly having major display glitches, and I think it’s due to a cold solder joint, but my monitor is just glued and welded together in such a way where if I tried fixing it, I’d crack the screen and make it even more useless, so now I just have to… get a whole new monitor.

It’s also not as SEO-gameable (since fediverse domains are inherently more fragmented than a large, high-reputation domain for SEO algorithms to rank highly), and doesn’t have an inherent monetization system (unlike platforms like Twitter with their ad payouts), so that’s a couple more things going for us.

Make sure to sign up via a creator’s link! (the ones they’ll put in the sponsored section of a video where they are “sponsored” by Nebula as one of Nebula’s creators)

Gets you a pretty good discount and drops it to about 30 bucks a year.

True, but that also depends on the circumstance.

Again, a lot of people just use LLMs now as their primary search engine. Google is an afterthought, ChatGPT is their source of choice. If they ask a simple question with legal or medical implications, with tons of sources, that the LLM answers with identical accuracy to those other publications, should they be sued?

I think it would be a lot better to allow people to sue if it provides false advice that ends up causing some material harm, because at the end of the day, a lot of stuff can be considered “medical.”

Maybe a trans person asks what gender affirming care is. Is that medical? I’d say it is. Should that not get discussed through an LLM if a person wants to ask it?

I’m not saying I wholeheartedly oppose this idea of banning them from giving this type of advice, but I do think there are a lot of concerns around just how many people this would actually benefit vs just cutting people off from information they might not bother to look up elsewhere, or worse, just go to less reputable, more fringe sites with less safeguards and less accountability instead.

I’m not sure I totally agree with this, even as much as I want AI companies to be held accountable for things like that.

The reason so many people turn to LLMs for legal/medical advice is because those are both incredibly unaffordable, complex, hard to parse fields.

If I ask an LLM what x symptom, y symptom, and z symptom could mean, and it cites multiple reputable sources to tell me it’s probably the flu and tells me to mask up for a bit, that’s probably gonna be better than that person being told “I’m sorry, I can’t answer that”

At the same time, I might provide an LLM with all those symptoms, and it might hallucinate an answer and tell me I have cancer, or tell me to inject bleach to cure myself.

I feel like I’d much rather see a bill that focuses more on how the LLMs come to their conclusions, rather than just a blanket ban.

Like for example, if an LLM cites multiple medical journals, government health websites, etc, and provides the same information they had up, but it turns out to be wrong later because those institutions were wrong, would it be justified to sue the LLM company for someone else’s accidental misinformation?

But if an LLM pulls from those sources, gets most of it right, but comes to a faulty conclusion, then should a private right of action exist?

I’m not really sure myself to be honest. A lot of people rely on LLMs for their information now, so just blanket banning them from displaying certain information, for a lot of people, is just gonna be “you can’t know”, and they’re not gonna bother with regular searches anymore. To them, the chatbot IS the search engine now.

Reticulum seems cool since it can work over all kinds of different networking technologies, even regular ol’ WiFi and whatnot. Higher bandwidth channels can talk to lower bandwidth channels, and vice versa.

It has its own problems with scale and actual users out in the wild, as well as I believe some issues getting proper code contributions and consistent maintenance.

Like someone else said, the stuff made to make someone look militaristic, or more like a strong/scary dude, at least in their eyes.

Gun rights themed stickers on their phone, thin blue line patches or hats, way too much camo, having a massive, overly expensive truck with blacked out windows, and honestly at least in my community, just having anything with an American flag prominently visible on it tends to mean you’re a person that’s… not that nice to be around. Also sometimes common with people that’ve got way too much Christianity themed items, though that’s more of a higher likelihood than a strong certainty.

To give you some examples of what people with any of that have said/displayed to me:

• “I want to be a prison guard so I can boss around the inmates and make them clean the floors while I watch. I might get to taze them too!”
• “I wish those people (homeless woman and her children) outside would stop begging and get a job, I don’t like being asked for money…”
• Deliberately misgendering my coworkers (after being directly verbally corrected by them)
• Preaching so much to me and my coworkers (about specifically hyper-conservative christian values. She goes to a church where women aren’t allowed to be pastors or preach at all) that one of my Christian coworkers who had a cross necklace had to hide it because the woman got so excited from seeing it on him that her nonstop preaching made him have a panic attack
• A cop telling me I’m doing my job wrong, after I showed him the state law saying I was allowed to do that (he proceeded to do nothing about what he was called there for, and leave after chatting with the security guard for 10 minutes, on the clock)
• Sexually assaulted one of my coworkers

I’ve never had any experiences even remotely close to that from people who just… didn’t feel the need to compensate for their masculinity with guns and big trucks, or justify their actions with Jesus and “patriotism.” Sure there’s always some general rudeness or people just being ignorant or inconsiderate, but nothing on that scale.

Treat it similarly to how you should treat posting on any social media service.

If you make a post, that is federated to all kinds of other instances. They might process your delete request, or they might just ignore it and keep old posts stored for as long as they want. It’s the same with if you make a post on Reddit, someone sends that thread’s URL to the Internet Archive, and now there’s a permanent record of your account there.

If you post publicly, expect it will be recorded by someone publicly viewing it, and it will not be guaranteed to be removed.

I’ve noticed a few, but nothing crazy. Just the occasional post where I can tell this is an automated account that isn’t marked as such, posting shit like short-captioned AI slop images 1-3 times a day, usually on Mastodon and not Lemmy.