Skip to content

Matrix.org is Introducing Premium Accounts

Technology
52 34 0
  • Texting myself the weather every day

    Technology technology
    4
    13 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    G
    Even being too lazy to open the weather app, there are so many better and free ways of receiving a message on your phone. This is profoundly stupid.
  • AJWIN — A Revolução do Entretenimento Online em Suas Mãos

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 7 Stimmen
    14 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    G
    A carrot perhaps... Or a very big stick.
  • 463 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    L
    Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information. The law doesn't magically make open discussions not open. By design, social media is open. If discussion from the public is closed, then it's no longer social media. ban people who share false information Banning people doesn't stop falsehoods. It's a broken solution promoting a false assurance. Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true. There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies. Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down. Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed. Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify. If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing. It has a prepared, coordinated message. They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want. Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked. They aren't claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.
  • 183 Stimmen
    39 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    H
    https://archive.org/details/swgrap
  • 21 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    B
    We have to do this ourselves in the government for every decommissioned server/appliance/end user device. We have to fill out paperwork for every single storage drive we destroy, and we can only destroy them using approved destruction tools (e.g. specific degaussers, drive shredders/crushers, etc). Appliances can be kind of a pain, though. It can be tricky sometimes finding all the writable memory in things like switches and routers. But, nothing is worse than storage arrays... destroying hundreds of drives is incredibly tedious.
  • 44 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    G
    It varies based on local legislation, so in some places paying ransoms is banned but it's by no means universal. It's totally valid to be against paying ransoms wherever possible, but it's not entirely black and white in some situations. For example, what if a hospital gets ransomed? Say they serve an area not served by other facilities, and if they can't get back online quickly people will die? Sounds dramatic, but critical public services get ransomed all the time and there are undeniable real world consequences. Recovery from ransomware can cost significantly more than a ransom payment if you're not prepared. It can also take months to years to recover, especially if you're simultaneously fighting to evict a persistent (annoyed, unpaid) threat actor from your environment. For the record I don't think ransoms should be paid in most scenarios, but I do think there is some nuance to consider here.
  • Windows Is Adding AI Agents That Can Change Your Settings

    Technology technology
    26
    1
    103 Stimmen
    26 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    T
    Edit: no, wtf am i doing The thread was about inept the coders were. Here is your answer: They were so fucking inept they broke a fundamental function and it made it to production. Then they did it deliberately. That's how inept they are. End of.