Ferk

If you are happy with the default, then just use the default.

Some of us use the terminal more than any other app, so I like my terminal to be super lightweight and snappy in all situations so it opens instantaneously (I doubt this one is like that though, if it has big dependencies like GTK / Qt), preferably if it does so without sacrificing in features (true color, things like sixel for graphics, allowing to set fallback fonts, maybe font ligatures, being able to set the app-id so my compositor can treat special terminal windows differently, etc).

I wonder if freeing up those resources also implies that much of the adware Microsoft often includes in Windows might be removed too.

if it's not: I'm skeptical that the gain in resources would be enough.

if it is: I'm skeptical that this OS won't be locked down as much as possible to prevent it to be used for anything useful beyond this specific gaming usecase and/or specific to pre-authorized devices.

I think Microsoft benefits too much from the adware they add to Windows to allow this new version of the OS to potentially be used as an alternative.

Consider for a moment that browsers still support multiple protocols besides hypertext transfer.

When the protocol is not https, then it will show it. In fact, it will show if the page is http and not https.

The lock icon (the one showing certificate information when clicked) only shows when the page is https, so essentially that icon replaces the https://

You can increase the number of items shown by bumping up the browser.urlbar.maxRichResults setting in about:config.

But you won't get a scrollbar even if you bump it till it goes beyond the height of your screen.

I mean.. it would be simpler if it didn't run any commands.

I think the point is that the UI of the bar wasn't really more complicated before. So it's not like the bar itself has really gotten any simpler. Specially if they aren't removing the previous ways to access those functions.

That said, I do like the idea.

The approach to taxing isn't determined by this tool, but by the government. What this tool tries to prevent is hidden money exchanges, which affect both methods of taxing, not only flat taxes but also income-based taxes (since a hidden sale is giving the seller a hidden income and potentially placing them at a lower income tax class).

I'm expecting that if she has been scammed and her token was stolen, you can report this token to the police and they might be able to ask the banking system in which account was this token deposited, to hopefully trace the scammer back.

If so, this looks safer than the scams that ask grandmas to get giftcard codes.

But that's assuming that the token was obtained from grandm's bank and not that the grandma paid a scammer in some other untraceable way to obtain a fake token from the scammer. That would be a different kind of scam.

True. Also, it would be helpful to actually understand what kind of metadata is this referring to and specifically in which cases does this apply and which cases are exempt.. because I expect that if the design of a service explicitly makes it so all the metadata you can collect is not helpful/reliable, then you wouldn't be forced to redesign the service, you'll just provide metadata that's unreliable.

I feel these kind of measures never are really effective at stopping organized criminal activity (since those looking for a way will find it), what they are effective at is tracing/tracking non-criminal private use.

Does the DCO really offer a real guarantee? it looks like it just adds a Signed-off-by John line at the end of the commit, with no actual signature checking that enforces any particular version of a particular document is being acknowledged. IANAL but it doesn't look like something proven to work in court to give legal protection.

Sure, it's easier to simply add a sign-off-by line than actually accepting a legal agreement, so it reduces the barrier of entry, but if this were really enough to establish the conditions to shift liability then I don't see why companies wouldn't start using their own DCOs and extending them, essentially just being a more convenient CLA (which is a license agreement, not a copyright transfer, even if some might add terms that allow relicensing.. which anyway is already possible given the project is already MIT licensed).

I mean.. isn't the point of decentralization that you can build your own service with the same protocol and still communicate with the other services?

There are ongoing initiatives for alternative stacks speaking the AT protocol, like Northsky, or Indiesky.

There's also community-run labelers and blocklists for moderation. You can make the moderation stronger, what you might not be able to do is make it weaker if the PDS takes an account down fully, or the indexer/relay refuses to use it.

This depends entirely of what you mean by "of Windows" and what you mean by "for Linux". This terminology is ambiguous.

Are you a Lemmy user for lemmy.world, or are you a lemmy.world user for Lemmy?

It's also inconsistent because when they say, for example, "Microsoft Azure Linux Container Host for AKS", they are talking about running a Microsoft Azure Linux Container inside of AKS, not a container that is meant to be used for running AKS within it...

The whole Savannah service still feels like it's intended for SVN... it feels very outdated.

Not just Guix but the whole hosting from GNU should have in place a forgejo-based solution, imho. I'm not saying they should throw away the emailing system.. but they should wrap it around a more modern and more integrated solution.