xcancel is just one Nitter instance (just like lemmy.ml is one Lemmy instance). I recommend sharing the load around to other working instances, or better yet, as Avatar of Vengeance mentioned, use the LibRedirect browser extension which automates this for a huge range of other websites.

A good thing about tech is that if you have a spare device (even a cheap single-board computer like a Raspberry Pi or similar cheaper one, or a partly-broken laptop) or a working virtual machine, you can break things. That’s a core characteristic of the old-school hacker mindset, to try stuff and break stuff until you understand stuff. Usually, the worst case, you just reinstall the operating system and have a fresh clean environment (or, better yet, you restore a backup you made! Learning how to fail gracefully is a great skill)

I bricked a certain wacky laptop setup twice and had to start over (luckily with backups) just trying to get a custom startup loading screen. But once I realized why it was breaking and how to avoid it, I had a cooler looking computer!

It should show up fine in a mobile browser.

It’s just a flat-colored version of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vector-based_example.svg

I know it’s been said, but Brave is a hard no. Replace it with Ungoogled Chromium. I haven’t seen the video so I don’t understand why it’s in the “not ideal for a normal human” list, and I am biased since I use plenty of “not for normal” tools.

Now the noob is using wepb for a bunch of rasterised vector graphics with 4 or 5 flat colors, and he’s wasting more disk space than before.

I just tested with this image:

Default GIMP WebP export settings (90% quality): 88.8 kB

Lossless WebP mode: 85.6 kB

Default GIMP PNG export settings (compression level 9): 189.8 kB

So I don’t trust this claim unless you have some evidence.

In fact, it should still be the default unless you need something it doesn’t support or really need to reduce file size.

I disagree. It is wasteful (we’re talking ~30% savings with lossless WebP or JPEG-XL) and widely misused, which matters at the massive scale of the Internet with technically inexperienced people making up plenty of those images.

I haven’t been around these communities in a while, so I can’t really speak for /c/privacy as much as /r/privacy and other communities, but I’ve noticed far far far far too many posts which are blindly perfectionist, with no consideration of threat capabilities or their motivations. Privacy is futile without a realistic threat model, that’s how you get burned out solving non-problems and neglecting actual problems.

My threat model is largely just minimizing surveillance capitalism and avoiding basement-dweller neo-nazi stalkers from connecting any dots between my online personas and real life identity. Even for that, my measures are a bit excessive, but not to the point where I’m wasting much time or effort.

Daily reminder: “more private” and “more secure” are red flags. If you see or say these, without a very specific context, it’s the wrong attitude towards privacy and security. They’re not linear scales, they’re complex concepts. That’s why Tor Browser is excellent for my anonymity situation but atrociously insecure to anyone who is being personally targeted by malware (tl;dr monoculture ESR Firefox^[1]). That’s why Graphene is not automatically anti-privacy simply because it runs on a Google Pixel and Android-based OS. (Google is one of my main adversaries.) And I think this simplistic ‘broscience’ style of “[x] is better than [y], [z] is bad” discourse is harmful and leads people into ineffective approaches.

wut?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TikTok#Corporate_structure

Not merely funded, owned by a for-profit.

It exists for profit. That is its goal and purpose.

Waterfox try to remove some blobs of Firefox out of the box, so it’s better for the normal user

How is removing blobs better for the normal user?

That’s not the point. You can say the same about Blender, etc.

I haven’t used Illustrator, what does the shape tool do that makes it different to using boolean operations on shapes?

https://inkscape-manuals.readthedocs.io/en/latest/circles-ellipses-and-arcs.html

I’m no expert but I think translation technology has become pretty impressive now (like real-time camera image-to-text transation), and besides, there are plenty of tourist groups for China (if you can tolerate that kind of thing). I know a few people who couldn’t even tell you the words for “one ticket, please” who visited and enjoyed China, even a few more rural areas where most locals couldn’t speak a word of English either.

(Of course, it’s basic manners to at least learn super basics like “hello” and “thank you”, and these visitors did)

No, that’s not my argument. Plenty of those licenses are enforceable and sometimes enforced - even if they’re not enforced perfectly.

My argument is that OP’s license is mostly targeting situations which, I believe, are unenforceable. I know this following example is ridiculous, but it’s a bit like saying “we should ban drunk driving in other countries”. Drunk driving laws are useful, they’re enforceable even if not perfect, but there’s no point in trying to enforce them in other countries who won’t respect our laws.

The reason we aren’t enforcing what OP is proposing is because it doesn’t exist, so no enforcement apparatus exists. Why would it?

Our legal systems already recognize and have some mechanisms to enforce contracts and licenses. We don’t need to build a whole new one for each license. But our existing copyright system already fails to enforce itself in certain countries and with certain entities (e.g. military) and I just can’t see that changing.

Why?

I absolutely agree. Violent direct actions are rarely the preferred route even of notorious groups like antifascists. Even (left) radical groups usually understand and teach that mass movements are safer and more powerful, the best way to win a battle is without firing a shot. And the failure of the late 1800s/early1900s anarchist propaganda of the deed assassinations proves your point that violence alone won’t solve problems. My caveat is that when violence becomes tactically appropriate, we shouldn’t assume it’s inherently wrong.

Do you guys think that this is utopic? Does it really hurt the essence of open source? Do you think in the same way about this, and if yes, how do you cope with that?

I do think it’s utopian and I can’t see it being effective, but you do raise a good question: “Does it really hurt the essence of open source?”

I see open source through a pragmatic lens, not some untouchable liberalist moral right. I’m not the kind of person who says “We should hand power over to the fascists since they did win the vote this time”, or “Nazis have a legal right to be here, stop harassing them!”. Helping people in reality is more important than trying to implement abstract ideals consistently. So, when push comes to shove, I don’t really care about the essence of open source. One could claim that copyleft (e.g. GPL, CC-SA) violates the liberty of companies to use code freely. Yes, it does violate their liberties, but that’s a good thing. That’s the whole point, in fact. It’s a pragmatic compromise away from some abstract ultimate freedom, making it something that actually empowers us and avoids helping those exploiting us as much. And you’ve taken a similar theme - while I disagree with some of the entities you’ve chosen, I agree with your attitude. The essence of open source isn’t real, it can’t help us.

I don’t think it’s useful to directly compare the GPL. It’s often disrespected, yes, but it’s also often enforceable. If you violate the GPL in a for-profit product, you might be someone the courts have jurisdiction over and the license is enforceable. It is sometimes enforceable and therefore useful. In OP’s proposal, the only target of it I see as viable is the “radical parties”. All those other targets are pretty out-of-reach.

As a side point, GPL, along with MIT, CC0, WTFPL, etc., would still be somewhat useful regardless because they forfeit rights. I can modify and republish the software publicly because I’m confident I can’t legally be sued for it.