Skip to content
linux-nerds.org

linux-nerds.org
  1. Übersicht
  2. Technology
  3. What editor or IDE do you use and why?

What editor or IDE do you use and why?

Technology
37 32 0
Anmelden zum Antworten

  • A

    Deep in Mordor where the shadows lie: Dystopian tales of that time when I sold out to Google – elilla & friends’ very occasional blog thing

    Technology technology
    14
    1
    80 Stimmen
    14 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    A
    It was very boring.
  • E

    Why does Apple make a minority of developers finance the entire App Store?

    Technology technology
    10
    40 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    T
    Clearly the author doesn't understand how capitalism works. If Apple can pick you up by the neck, turn you upside down, and shake whatever extra money it can from you then it absolutely will do so. The problem is that one indie developer doesn't have any power over Apple... so they can go fuck themselves. The developer is granted the opportunity to grovel at the feet of their betters (richers) and pray that they are allowed to keep enough of their own crop to survive the winter. If they don't survive... then some other dev will probably jump at the chance to take part in the "free market" and demonstrate their worth.
  • clot27@lemmy.zipC

    Best way to block distractions

    Technology technology
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • tal@lemmy.todayT

    Catbox.moe got screwed 😿

    Technology technology
    40
    55 Stimmen
    40 Beiträge
    13 Aufrufe
    archrecord@lemm.eeA
    I'll gladly give you a reason. I'm actually happy to articulate my stance on this, considering how much I tend to care about digital rights. Services that host files should not be held responsible for what users upload, unless: The service explicitly caters to illegal content by definition or practice (i.e. the if the website is literally titled uploadyourcsamhere[.]com then it's safe to assume they deliberately want to host illegal content) The service has a very easy mechanism to remove illegal content, either when asked, or through simple monitoring systems, but chooses not to do so (catbox does this, and quite quickly too) Because holding services responsible creates a whole host of negative effects. Here's some examples: Someone starts a CDN and some users upload CSAM. The creator of the CDN goes to jail now. Nobody ever wants to create a CDN because of the legal risk, and thus the only providers of CDNs become shady, expensive, anonymously-run services with no compliance mechanisms. You run a site that hosts images, and someone decides they want to harm you. They upload CSAM, then report the site to law enforcement. You go to jail. Anybody in the future who wants to run an image sharing site must now self-censor to try and not upset any human being that could be willing to harm them via their site. A social media site is hosting the posts and content of users. In order to be compliant and not go to jail, they must engage in extremely strict filtering, otherwise even one mistake could land them in jail. All users of the site are prohibited from posting any NSFW or even suggestive content, (including newsworthy media, such as an image of bodies in a warzone) and any violation leads to an instant ban, because any of those things could lead to a chance of actually illegal content being attached. This isn't just my opinion either. Digital rights organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation have talked at length about similar policies before. To quote them: "When social media platforms adopt heavy-handed moderation policies, the unintended consequences can be hard to predict. For example, Twitter’s policies on sexual material have resulted in posts on sexual health and condoms being taken down. YouTube’s bans on violent content have resulted in journalism on the Syrian war being pulled from the site. It can be tempting to attempt to “fix” certain attitudes and behaviors online by placing increased restrictions on users’ speech, but in practice, web platforms have had more success at silencing innocent people than at making online communities healthier." Now, to address the rest of your comment, since I don't just want to focus on the beginning: I think you have to actively moderate what is uploaded Catbox does, and as previously mentioned, often at a much higher rate than other services, and at a comparable rate to many services that have millions, if not billions of dollars in annual profits that could otherwise be spent on further moderation. there has to be swifter and stricter punishment for those that do upload things that are against TOS and/or illegal. The problem isn't necessarily the speed at which people can be reported and punished, but rather that the internet is fundamentally harder to track people on than real life. It's easy for cops to sit around at a spot they know someone will be physically distributing illegal content at in real life, but digitally, even if you can see the feed of all the information passing through the service, a VPN or Tor connection will anonymize your IP address in a manner that most police departments won't be able to track, and most three-letter agencies will simply have a relatively low success rate with. There's no good solution to this problem of identifying perpetrators, which is why platforms often focus on moderation over legal enforcement actions against users so frequently. It accomplishes the goal of preventing and removing the content without having to, for example, require every single user of the internet to scan an ID (and also magically prevent people from just stealing other people's access tokens and impersonating their ID) I do agree, however, that we should probably provide larger amounts of funding, training, and resources, to divisions who's sole goal is to go after online distribution of various illegal content, primarily that which harms children, because it's certainly still an issue of there being too many reports to go through, even if many of them will still lead to dead ends. I hope that explains why making file hosting services liable for user uploaded content probably isn't the best strategy. I hate to see people with good intentions support ideas that sound good in practice, but in the end just cause more untold harms, and I hope you can understand why I believe this to be the case.
  • J

    Developer Collective of Peertube, the fediverse youtube alternative is doing a Ask-Me-Anything on lemmy.

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    106 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • D

    Paul McCartney and Dua Lipa urge UK Prime Minister to rethink his AI copyright plans. A new law could soon allow AI companies to use copyrighted material without permission.

    Technology technology
    107
    1
    875 Stimmen
    107 Beiträge
    9 Aufrufe
    softestsapphic@lemmy.worldS
    How are they going to make money off of these projects if people can legally copy and redistribute them for free? The same reasons everyone doesn't already do this via pirating. You mean copy, not steal. When something is stolen from you, you no longer have it. Wow you are just a troll, thanks for showing me so I don't waste anymore time with you.
  • T

    We have reached the “severed fingers and abductions” stage of the crypto revolution - Ars Technica

    Technology technology
    20
    1
    326 Stimmen
    20 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    roofuskit@lemmy.worldR
    It's extremely traceable. There is a literal public ledger if every single transaction.
  • return2ozma@lemmy.worldR

    After an Arizona man was shot, an AI video of him addresses his killer in court

    Technology technology
    8
    33 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    J
    Apparently, it was required to be allowed in that state: Reading a bit more, during the sentencing phase in that state people making victim impact statements can choose their format for expression, and it's entirely allowed to make statements about what other people would say. So the judge didn't actually have grounds to deny it. No jury during that phase, so it's just the judge listening to free form requests in both directions. It's gross, but the rules very much allow the sister to make a statement about what she believes her brother would have wanted to say, in whatever format she wanted. From: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/18471175 influence the sentence From what I've seen, to be fair, judges' decisions have varied wildly regardless, sadly, and sentences should be more standardized. I wonder what it would've been otherwise.