ggppjj

If we’re talking about Digital Rights Management, steam is acting in that role to manage your digital rights on the steam platform. They could allow you to download games without requiring an account login or client download, and they instead do not. They could allow you to download free games from the client or the website without requiring a login, and they do not.

GOG’s website is also DRM for the same reason. It won’t allow you to download games that aren’t licensed digitally to your account, including free games. GOG has DRM-free games and installers fairly universally beyond that first check, and that means you can download them from alternative sources, but downloading from GOG 100% requires interacting with DRM.

To be direct: I don’t care that Steam is DRM because it’s minimally invasive and I currently trust Valve enough to use an operating system made by them as a daily driver. There are very few companies I’d say that about.

The Steam client is DRM at its core, even if it’s acceptable DRM. I think it’s important not to allow your thinking to shift from the reality that it is DRM just because it’s personally acceptable.

I don’t mind it, I will simp for Valve all day long, and if a company requires you to log in to an account with their server to check whether your account has the digital entitlement to then allow you to access a file or not, that’s digital rights management.

I want to give the perspective that from a technical standpoint, even free games on steam require the steam client to install and while the license to play the game is free steam is licensing your account to own the game. The game doesn’t require steam after that and usually this means the game is available elsewhere, but for the specific case of “free games on steam”, steam is still acting to manage digital rights.

It’s the Handset Protocol/Handsfree Protocol that was developed for simultaneous sending and receiving of voice data. They’re the only protocols that support sending and receiving voice at the same time, and they do that by sending mono telephone quality audio and receiving mono telephone quality audio.

It’s why most gaming headsets, even ones with Bluetooth, include a small RF dongle separately. Bluetooth is technically incapable of high-quality audio when recording.

Well, the Starlink could be connected by an admin to a computer that is connected to SIPRNet, right? It exposes itself as just a router.

I mean, assuming the Starlink was brought on board by someone with authorization to be on board, any possible adversarial situation would necessarily be an internal issue to begin with.

Personally, I think the most likely answer involves an Xbox.

Until we can finally kill HSP/HFP, I’m never gonna be happy with Bluetooth. Using a headset mic shouldn’t blast you back to the telephone era.

You can’t connect a star link to siprnet.

Can you connect a computer? Because if so, that same computer can then be connected to the starlink, no?

I know absolutely nothing about secure government networking, I’m just kind of assuming that something has to be able to connect to both individually and also simultaneously.

Nano is the tool that people use when they don’t have a need for TUI editors in general and therefore don’t want to have to memorize how people with teletypes decided things should have been done 75 years ago and who also don’t want to get dragged into endless pointless bickering arguments about which set of greybeards was objectively right about their sets of preferences.

I’m glad people enjoy the editors they use and also I just wanna change a single fuckin line in a config file every once in a while without needing to consult a reference guide.

I am no longer interested in continuing a conversation with you, as you’ve convinced me that you’re not interested in engaging with what I am saying. Thank you for your time and perspective to this point.

You are misunderstanding me.

I am not disagreeing with you, but it’s intellectually dishonest to not acknowledge the context of the reality we live in: it used to require genuine talent and skill to use a paid tool to fake images, and now is as easy as entering text on your phone in a free app just describing what you want to see.

This is an exponential escalation of existing problems and technologies.

I never said I was just now worried about fake images. To say it myself: I’m worried about the now non-existent barrier that bad actors no longer need to clear to do whatever they want to do here.

You said “but” like it invalidated what I said, instead of being a true statement and a non sequitur.

You aren’t wrong, and I don’t think that changes what I said either.

Photoshop requires time and talent to make a believable image.

This requires neither.

Man, I never knew that my ISP was working so hard for me.

Life support for a monster set aside as insurance against the day that the monster needs it.

Agreed entirely, Mozilla doing nothing would be far preferable to me here then them helping extend our current experience with advertising by working towards a future with a minimal set of meaningless concessions that Meta’s involvement with suggests would not meaningfully negatively impact their business in any way.

To my mind, fixing advertising means making advertising a much less lucrative business. Doing anything else is only making the already dire problem worse.

The Device is now more valuable than the organs and combined incomes of everyone in SubjectHometownHere.

Depending on your use case, maybe you should. If your use case is “using the internet today securely”, then you definitely should.

I’m not trying to create a logical puzzle that teasing the right details out of will solve, I’m not even advocating for or against their decision, discord fuckin sucks shit and I can’t wait for element to continue to mature towards enough feature parity that a switch is seamless so that I can actually convince my friends to switch too, I’m reporting a reality of life on the internet today.

As someone who uses BSD licensed modified code at work and relies on it quite a lot, it’s crucial to me choosing which projects I’m able to use in the first place.

Personally, I prefer a license that allows for commercial use in the way that companies need them to, and if my own work ever can provide a patch back upstream I’d be happy to do so, but most of what I do is just tweaking things that exist to suit my purposes which doesn’t really help anyone but my business rivals which I personally am not interested in doing if I don’t have to.

I prefer to have the freedom to do as I wish with the code, as compared to being bound to do as the author wishes and essentially just not using that code in the first place because I can’t. I’m not in a position to change what I can and can’t do because of the requirements of the business I work for, and I’m grateful to those that choose licenses that allow me to use their work.

They’re creating a new browser because they want to. It started as an OS building project that the lead dev did to help stay sober.

They use discord because it’s popular. Insert Ouroborus argument here, and at the end of the day it’s still the most popular app.

He would’ve liked that. He was a real nice guy, always said I had a face for radio.

As my father always said: you may be a funny person, but looks don’t count for everything.

It’ll never catch on.

Ah gee dang, you’re right. Thanks!