Aren’t all motivations emotional?

I mean… what would be the “logical” reason to use FOSS? I feel you can’t just use pure logic as a form of motivation, ever. Something that only uses logic and not emotions cannot take any action like a computer algorithm made of pure logic with no hard-coded instincts that simply operates mathematically, in reality there’s no logical reason to act in one direction or another… morals/goals are always emotionally grounded.

I feel the problem has more to do with social reasons, and pragmatic reasons.

What determines a behavior being “extreme” often has more to do with what is the average behavior of the people you surround yourself with. It’s a relative term.

In a world where everyone used free software and saw that as the norm, with things being designed around software being free, someone going the extra mile just to use proprietary software would be seen as “extreme” too.

Also, I’m not convinced that the numeric balance of who killed the most from the other side in a war is what should determine who is in the wrong.

• Pretty Good Privacy (PGP): The first implementation of a set of methods used for signing, encrypting, and decrypting texts, emails and files that ultimately became a standard called “OpenPGP” (RFC 4880), the program itself was commercial/proprietary. Sometimes “PGP” is also used to call the standard itself for short.

• GNU Privacy Guard (GPG): A popular Free and Open Source program from the GNU project that uses/implements the OpenPGP standards

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.

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.

Ok, there are no numbers from 2024 yet in the source.

I think the solar capacity in 2023 for China was 525GW.

So a 277 GW increase in solar means it increased by (277 / 525) 52.76% (that’s great!)

That same percentage increase over the current value in terms of production would not make it rise past Australia per capita yet, but nobody can deny that’s an impressive pace.

Also, considering that the trend in population numbers for China is slowly starting to decrease, that could also contribute to an increase in the per capita numbers in the future.

Doesn’t that table show Australia has double the consumption? also that consumption number is in total primary energy, regardless if the energy comes from solar or not.

I believe that to see how much of the TPES for each country comes from solar we would need to divide the solar production per capita by the total consumption per capita:

- Australia: 1774 kWh / 63257 kWh = 2.80%
- China:      410 kWh / 33267 kWh = 1.23%

Sources: the 2023 numbers from his link, and the 2023 numbers from the source in your wikipedia link.

True, but then you have bigger problems than just the journal.

Then simply write it in a text editor without saving it into a file, it’ll be lost after closing the program.

Can you point to a specific law that the EU has passed in this direction?

Cos according to the article all attempts to pass something like this that have been presented in the EU have been blocked. By the EU.

An alternative title could have been: “EU Possibly The Only One Who Has Been Explicitly Rejecting Backdoor Mandates Until Now”

Sure, proposals keep being presented… but I feel it’s kind of a bit early to call the EU “greatest threat” just because yet another attempt has been made. Specially when you compare it with many other places where they apply things like this without batting an eye.

I’m not saying we (Europeans) shouldn’t push (yet again) to make sure this also fails… but the title of the article is a bit misplaced, and after a history of successful rejections I feel a lot more optimistic.

This. I’m moving to a place where I cannot use ethernet cable and I was looking for a good Wifi 7 router. Most big brands are at around the same price.

It’s just unfortunate that I need it now and not on late 2025… I might just rent a Wifi 6 one from my ISP and wait for the OpenWrt 2.

Thanks. I wasn’t planning to go there anyway…

It’s annoying how the title throws such a general open question and then they don’t clarify this at all… there isn’t even a single match for “USA” or “America” in the whole article, you have to sort of guess.

Yes, I understand that more mining could be done, but what I was saying is that I don’t think it could be sustained to the level of silicon. Bismuth is a rare mineral, and 100 times more expensive than silicon.

China is the world’s largest market for semiconductors (50% of the chips in the world are traded there), if they want to use locally produced bismuth chips they would only be able to tackle a very small fraction of that. Either they are only used in special applications (like some particular specialized hardware at smaller scale) or it would be impossible, the Earth does not have enough resources to produce bismuth chips at the same scale as silicon. So I’m not sure if it could work as serious competition to silicon.

But we’ll see, maybe I’m wrong.

Silicon is like $3/kg (and that’s the higher price, it’s actually cheaper than that outside USA). I’m not sure if we could sustain the same level of manufacturing using bismuth without side effects. One of the best things about silicon is that it’s the second most abundant element in Earth’s lithosphere (the first being oxygen)… I don’t think the “line must go up” attitude around pushing for Moore’s law is a worthy effort. I’d rather we pushed for software to be more efficient, I don’t feel my PC is significantly faster than it was 10 years ago, despite its Hz having doubled.

I could understand using this for specialized applications, but I’m not convinced it should be something that should be made as widespread as silicon tech, so I don’t think this should really be seen as a replacement for it.

Would using bismuth in chip production affect the price of medicaments?

And remember that Mozilla is supposed to be a non-profit.

I don’t understand how it makes sense for a nonprofit to make it so profitable to their executives to manage it… why is that not regulated?

I think that’s the point, he’s saying he’d rather use USA-linked FOSS than non-USA proprietary software.

From what I gather, I don’t think it’s about any stance from Codeberg in general, it seems they are attacking “several projects advocating tolerance and equal rights” in particular. They just happen to be hosted in Codeberg.

This might fool some scrapping, but at the expense of making it not very legible for humans too. Also while ti might work right now, if it ever became a popular approach the AI scrapping could easily adapt. I expect they already try to correct for spelling mistakes anyway.

It reminds me of leet-speak. The custom keyboard is not a bad idea though.

This is the full paragraph:

We collect certain device and network connection information when you access the Service. This information includes your device model, operating system, keystroke patterns or rhythms, IP address, and system language. We also collect service-related, diagnostic, and performance information, including crash reports and performance logs. We automatically assign you a device ID and user ID. Where you log-in from multiple devices, we use information such as your device ID and user ID to identify your activity across devices to give you a seamless log-in experience and for security purposes.

It looks to me that they are using it to identify the user uniquely, maybe also related to captcha to prevent bots (it’s common practice to capture mouse and keyboard while resolving captchas to see if the movement is human-like).

But that’s not what the terms on both Google/Meta and Deepseek say.

There’s no term in their ToS saying Google/Meta restricts the data collection to forms, which means that if the ToS allowed them to collect them from forms (and as you admitted, we do know for a fact that they do), then it also allows them to collect it outside of forms. The reason I put the search suggestions as example is because it’s one we CAN know (and thank you for agreeing on that), but that doesn’t mean they don’t do other captures at times we DON’T know… and also it’s not the only place, Google owns several captcha mechanisms and capturing input patterns is common on those too (and captchas capture outside forms too!). Another obvious example is Google docs, another is Google translate… and again, those are only the obvious ones, we don’t know if there are non-obvious ones.

In the other direction too, Deepseek terms don’t say it does it outside of forms either. You are jumping into assumptions by saying it acts the same as a traditional keylogger and that the keystrokes are captured for “anything typed”. For all we know the only place they might be capturing is when the user is in very specific steps of the login process, maybe for captcha purposes too, or specific forms for preloading results, etc. There’s no reason you should trust they do it any less/more than Google/Meta does, the ToS in both have the same lack of information in that respect.

You can only make assumptions one way or the other, since the terms are not specific on what exactly they allow themselves to do, in the case of Google/Meta they’re so sneaky that they avoid saying they do capture them (even though they do, as you yourself admitted), while in the case of Deepseek, even though they are a bit more specific by using the word “keystrokes”, they also don’t specify where/when/why (other than “to give you a seamless log-in experience and for security purposes” …but that’s also unclear wording).