Considering you link something that has a non comnercial license CC-by-NC, there might be others with permissive licenses. There might be things in their TOS of the site,
There's more with different licenses. If you scroll through the pages, there are a lot of assets ripped from games, with a variety of licenses CC-by-NC, or just "beerware":
It's a mechanism to legally force web browser vendors to install government issues root certificates (which they already did btw). And EU pinky-promises that not a single independent EU member won't use them to do MITM attacks on their political opposition and journalists. Like Orban 2.0 or Fico won't use Hungarian or Slovak root cert for nefarious purposes, no-no-no. It's only to protect the children, see, and definitely not to help murder journalists investigating drug smuggling cover-up. :)
I think we have pretty decent examples where browsers remove malicious root certificates if they have been so proven. Do you think the matters will be different if those belong to a country level root?
And I think we have pretty decent examples of all kinds of initiatives where governments (or corporations) promise not abuse something which clearly can be abused, and then proceed to do just that. In the age of "cheques and bank balances" and continuous degradation of parliamentarism and judicial systems in multiple developed countries, I don't have much hope for "if the abuse will happen, we will fix it afterwards" promises. Rather, I expect it to be immediately normalized and then made worse. Yesterday we (IT) were talking how government can abuse information requests. Today we have government just sifting through almost everything unencrypted in real-time with zero shame. Tomorrow we will lose E2EE in most big countries and no one would "fix that" or roll back (it's already slowly happening in UK for example).
First time I read Ceph and "pretty smooth" in the same sentence, it is really that easy now days? I have always thought it was pretty heavy on operational knowledge.
It's probably not the tone. You only choose to hear that tone and close up. (From my experience)
I hold some fringe ideas, e.g. helmets are bad. So I have lots of experience with handling discussion where people close up for any rational argument. Because I am just wrong by definition. That really lets you explore how people react to ideas they do not support.
The key is "maybe try doing something", does not mean to destroy our culture. My child choose to be vegetarian but I just can not be bothered. I am too lazy. That does not mean I do not try to adapt. You can find the things that are wonderful with other ways of life.
I am not vegan, will never be, but I have known vegans for more than two decades and they are doing fine. We need to make it easy to make the right choice about food, and one way to do that is to stop making meat meat meat the ONLY cool thing. I am fine with vegans serving me tasty food, they make alternatives easier. If you do not want to be a full time vegan just switch to 3 out 7 days of the week or something like that.
Last time I saw this an obscure single letter root password was still "secure", now days seems like almost all non-alphanumeric chars works. % is my new root password it still has not been brute forced.
I think there are, see the other comment about tree-style tabs or similar for Firefox. I can absolutely see the value in that and I don't argue for that option to be removed or otherwise degraded.
But that's not the point. I'm not against applications offering those possibilities, and when I have to use Windows for work, I'm happy browsers have them.
My point is that they shouldn't force users into this way of working. Browsers already support multiple windows. Why can't I just disable the whole tab feature if I don't care for it? A while ago, when tabs were still new, you had to actively opt in. The default was a new window for everything. Now this option is completely gone for some reason.
reply