Excrubulent

Reminds me of my partner's childhood pastor warning them not to spend too much time questioning their faith, because in their experience it had led a lot of people away from the church. Gee, maybe think about how that sounds. Like, you basically just told them that your beliefs couldn't withstand interrogation.

"Ran" in this context is part of a dialect of English in certain parts of the US. It is spoken that way, on purpose, by native speakers, and is thus perfectly correct.

Saying that it "makes people think you share teeth" shows that you are in fact aware of this cultural distinction and your problem with the usage is not about grammar but about classism, which is also clearly on show with your bigoted description of poor southern US people.

My only current issue is that I have a Pimax VR headset, and nobody to my knowledge has ever got their proprietary software working in wine. I could try it in a VM but I don't love the idea of wrestling with the likely performance hit. I guess I could always keep windows 10 as a second OS.

Who are you talking to? There's nothing there.

Honestly your original question was so vague and terse I almost didn't reply, it just seemed so pointless. If you don't want hostility, don't come with an attitude like that. Do the work to make yourself understood the first time. And don't just demand citations - you're not my professor. Just ask questions like a normal fucking person. Ask for information.

Given you're asking for evidence of Microsoft's sabotaging of open source projects including Linux, I'm going to have to assume you're coming from a place of actual curiosity and not bad faith. It's actually one of the most famous examples of anticompetitive behaviour in history. Start there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish

The comment I replied to didn't source their claim that it's the users' fault, but I notice you didn't ask them to source their claims.

Perhaps you could explain why your skepticism is so selective before I answer your question.

And perhaps you could be more specific about what claim you want "sourced". That the switch to linux has a lot of friction? That it's difficult? That Microsoft has deliberately cultivated that friction? That users aren't simply failing to consider it? That blaming the users isn't the solution?

What exactly do you want me to source?

These are all good points and I have nothing to argue about with this comment. I really just wanted someone to answer the issue raised instead of changing the subject, and you've done that.

As for the linked comment, there are ways to verify that backend code is the same as open source. Not on a software level of course, but if you trust audits for logging practices presumably you can trust them for checking that the code base is the same.

Also you can verify that a web client is running the same code as open sourced, especially if it's a scripted client, since it would deliver code uncompiled. You can also check the signatures of binaries. Most people won't do this, but it only takes one security expert to check and discover that there's a discrepancy. If they then decompile it and find malware, that's the ballgame. Trust gone. There's a strong incentive for a premium service whose main selling point is privacy and transparency to never even flirt with that.

I agree that Proton has made themselves about as trustworthy as any private company can be, and maybe with the shift to foundation they can alter their model to not rely on being the singular operator. However, when you say "good for us, bad for business", that's the issue. The reason the fediverse works is that nobody can develop a monopoly on it. I mean, you've already said that ideally it should all be open source, so we agree on that too.

I understand that a closed backend isn't a deal breaker for a lot of people and that makes sense given the client side encryption. It's just that it is a potential problem in the longer term. It's an artefact of them having to exist in a capitalist context. Maybe they'll find a way through without succumbing to capitalist logic. I certainly hope they can.

It's about the server-side code. If that's not an issue then someone needs to make the argument, not throw up smokescreens about the apps and frontend code.

You're right that the encryption needs to be verifiable on the client side, but then why not share the server side code?

I mean if they did, anyone could theoretically spin up an instance, which would be good, actually.

Is that the backend code? It seems like they're talking about the apps, not backend code. The thing being discussed here is backend code.

It's not a failure to consider the alternatives that slows adoption, it is the very real material problems with those alternatives.

It's not fair that a multinational corporation gets to wield virtually limitless power to starve the alternatives of oxygen and create as much friction as possible in the process of switching, but it is a very real problem, and blaming the users won't solve anything.

Unfortunately you're basically highlighting the reason that propaganda like this works: immediacy bias.

This story, and the idea of the video, of the woman being raped is immediately visible.

The historical context surrounding this story, and the political context of its dissemination, is not visible. All the stories that were neglected by the media that is cynically using this current story are not immediately in front of us.

It's hard for people to step out of that immediate reaction because it feels like the story they just heard is happening in front of them. We're not mentally built for a global news environment where news stories can be cherry picked for their desired impact.

It's ironic that something called "immediacy bias" is being exploited by the media, when immediate literally means "without media". Maybe in this case it should be called the immediacy illusion.

Like for instance every conservative Christian politician who was piously sworn in on the Bible, despite Jesus himself saying not to swear by anything and calling the practice demonic. By their own stated belief system they are inaugurating their public office with a satanic ritual.

This isn't some obscure passage either, it's in the Sermon on the Mount, one of the most famous scenes in the entire Bible. Anyone who swears on the Bible in any capacity clearly doesn't take it seriously enough to know anything about what it says.

And the alternative given to swearing oaths is just like... idk, maybe be honest in general, guys?