Those would be different kind of regulations. Not just ‘you need functioning brakes’ kind, but also ‘you must serve this route that hardly anyone uses and and you cannot make any extra money from’. Or ‘no extra fees, even where some people would pay them’.
If that means proper regulations (as it should) I bet they would hate it.
And that is the problem with this idea.
Subscription to a software is not mutually exclusive with self-hosting. Developers deserve to earn money, especially those who do not rely on collecting data, showing ads and enshittification of their cloud platform.
‘Pay to show a link’ is the way Google wants us to see this legislation. But linki are not what the news sources are fighting. The problem is Google presents the news and other information in the search result in the way that users often do not need to leave Google and foll9w the link.
Someone produces content so people visit their się and make them money, but those users get the information they want (sometimes incomplete or broken) straight from Google and only Google gets the money. That is not fair and that is what laws like this try to fix (better or worse). But Google and such have powerful propaganda and here we are.
Another thing is: users of services like Reddit or Lemmy also do similar thing (posting content in a way that preventing monetization at its source), so they have extra reason to take Google side.
5 year old may remember his family killed by Israel.
Have you ever worked with a computer with modern general-purpose OS like Linux and no RTC? It sucks. It is not strictly necessary, you can live without it, but you need workarounds for basic stuff timestamps in log files or in the file system. At least for a minute until NTP connection is established, but may be longer when internet connection is not available. And when routers are rebooted most often? When troubleshooting broken internet connection. This is also the time when properly timestamped logs could be useful.
And battery backed RTC is cheap. It doesn’t fit on a Raspberry Pi board, but can easily fit into a router case. No excuse for omitting it.
URLs are definitely encrypted. What can be sent unencrypted are domain names and IP addresses. Which is not a problem when the host name is ‘youtube.com’, but is a bigger problem if it is ‘the-terrorists.com’.
Isn’t that their long national tradition? Like with paper technology, silk technology or porcelain technology?
deleted by creator
What is more interesting, Google came as a more friendly alternative, with drastically less ads than Alta Vista and other search engines of that time had. Today’s Google is only just approaching now the amount of ads on the search results page that those had. It is just a bit smarter about mixing ads with actual search results and the ads are more targeted (which is not necessarily a good thing).
But all this is available in desktop Firefox. Partially built-in, partially via add-ons. The mobile version is very limited.
This paymemt does not even stop their crappy ‘recommended for you’ suggested content on user’s wall, which is even more annoying than the ads.
But is it a clickbait in this case? The title is exactly the question the article thoroughly answers.
Not that easily and cheaply as they used to be.
Doesn’t sound like the ‘cheap small computer you can run your hobby electronics project on’ that the original Pi used to be. It is not as cheap and a power hungry beast, still small, though. More and more like a PC and less and less a small cheap embedded platform. For some people it is a plus (I guess for most people here), for some not so much.
I tend to build my projects on Raspberry Pi Pico now, but sometimes I would need something more powerful and Raspberry Pi 5 will be too much.
The idea is you package the software once and it works forever, because all dependencies for it are provided in the exact right version. And the dependencies may include things that would not be included in the base system (like super new versions of some important libraries).
That is true, but that is also the problem: both the package and all its dependencies may be left never updated.
In traditional Linux distribution, like Debian, every package must be compiled within the same system, which usually means specific version of all key libraries. And when the key libraries are upgraded some packages compiled for older versions won’t work, the package might not even compile with newer version of the libraries. And it is often not possible/practical to provide multiple different version of libraries (or other shared system components). The result is distribution developers have a lot of hard work updating all the packages. When there is no one to fix a package for the next version of the package, the package will be removed from the distribution. That happens when package is not maintained upstream and/or no one cares enough to maintain it in the distribution. In that case – is it worth to keep it?
Snap makes packaging applications much easier, and more decoupled from the operating system ‘core’. Less maintenance is needed… but that also means less maintenance will be done, which is not necessarily good.
On the other hand, Snap allows application to be maintained more rapidly than the distro core – in that case it can make things safer – fix in applications and their dependencies can be fixed that it could be done in the normal Debian release process. But that depends on maintainers of the specific snap and its dependencies.
You mean they choose not to support Linux. Still sounds like they are to blame, not Linux.
Matrix is open protocol, everybody is free to build their own clients. Maintainers of any one implementation are free to choose code to include in their project. And people can fork Element if they don’t like the way it is going.
Maybe Element developers are not great in including external contribution… but still nothing else seems to implement Matrix that well.
No other client seems feature-complete. I wish I could use NeoChat instead of Matrix, but it still cannot even handle encrypted conversations properly. Are they rejecting contributions too?
Non-toxic glue would be starch or gelatine - both used as base of some ‘real glues’, both with valid culinary use, including exactly this use case. We just don’t call those ‘glue’ in this context.