NaibofTabr

Mongolia?

You just broke the secret law!

Typical fascist behavior.

Is it possible that some of the discomfort comes from trying to use controls that are too small?

I also have big hands, and I find the Switch controllers uncomfortable because they feel like they were meant for baby hands, and they’re flat so it’s an effort to keep hold of them. I find the Deck very easy to hold because its grips are built like a proper controller and all the buttons are within comfortable reach. The ergonomics make a big difference.

Valve put a lot of design effort into the form of the Deck:

Don’t get a Steam Deck. It’s far too convenient. Everything just works the way it’s supposed to. You tell it to install a game, it does that. You tell it to run a game, it does that. You need a break, you just tap the power button and it goes to sleep. You want to play again, you just tap the power button and it resumes the game you left running like nothing happened. You want to install a bigger hard drive so you can have more games, you can do that. You want to replace the sticks because you’ve worn them out, you can do that. You want to plug it into a TV and use it to watch Netflix, you can do that. You want to plug it into a monitor, mouse and keyboard and use it as desktop, you can do that.

You’ll sit on the couch and play games, you’ll sit on the shitter and play games, you’ll sit in bed and play games. You’ll take it on the bus, the train, the airplane, no problem.

Don’t buy a Steam Deck, you won’t get anything else done.

Oh, but you might finally play some of those untouched games in your library, so there’s that.

surveillance of NATO

NATO as a surveillance group is definitely a boogeyman created by Russian and Chinese propaganda. NATO countries share some military information with each other, but it’s not an intelligence organization.

You’re probably thinking of the Five Eyes, for which there is actual credible documentation of domestic surveillance.

Absolutely, that’s the problem that Google is targeting here. Republicans like to claim that federal regulation is bad for businesses, but in reality it’s state-level regulation that makes it harder for businesses to operate.

Not to be super pro-Google, this is purely self-interested for them. But it seems like people are interpreting this as Google being anti-regulation in general, and I don’t think that’s correct.

Or have a “tea drinking” session:

When I was able to speak to Ms. Wu about the “tea drinking” session (euphemism for police harassment), she sharply conveyed her sense of vulnerability due to the lack of interest in her stepping away from her popular Twitter account, stating,

Literally the only thing that was keeping me online for the past few years was they were worried it would make China look bad if they cracked down on me. Now that they know that I could be dead in a ditch tomorrow and no one would give a shit or say a word I’m 1000x less safe here.

[…]

Wu added,

After years of doing this without anyone saying anything, on June 30th, out of the blue, they send plainclothes thugs to my house. Surprise! They were real cops.

Why? because she’s LGBTQ+, has a Uyghur partner, and has some friends in Western nations.

reference: https://www.hackingbutlegal.com/p/naomi-wu-and-the-silence-that-speaks-volumes

https://x.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/1177145458503737344

I think there’s some confusion over the intent here.

Lawmakers in state capitals across the country […]

So based on this, Google is using “state” here to mean a US state and not the more general meaning of government.

For large corporations like Google, each state having its own local regulations (e.g. privacy regulations such as CCPA) is expensive because they have to account for different rules in different places, which means whole teams of legal experts just to be familiar with each state’s regulations and interpret what they mean for operating the business.

It’s also problematic in a technical sense, because on the internet how do you know if a particular user is a legal resident of Texas or Colorado or New Hampshire, and would even knowing that be a violation of their privacy rights?

So the intent here is to push federal regulation over state regulation, because it makes the legal and technical problems simpler.

Ultimately this is an argument against the way the Republican party does things, where they reject federal regulations saying that the states should be allowed to regulate themselves and that federal regulation is an overreach. This leads to weaker protections for citizens and weaker enforcement, which is the Republican party’s real intent. Every US citizen should have privacy protections, not just residents of California.

Assuming this gains traction, I don’t see how they’ll prevent it from being abused with targeted misinformation, short of manually reviewing and approving every new article and every edit.

ok new plan - flood Meta services with false and conflicting information connected to my real name

“You’re gonna be flame-grilled Anakin…”

/technicallythetruth

And that would make what, 3 social media companies between them?

Suddenly Zuck’s recent policy changes make sense, he caught wind of this sale and he’s indicating that he’s willing to play ball with them, while also trying to maintain the competitiveness of his own social media (his influence over public opinion).

Musk & Trump have been talking about defunding CISA, FTC and SEC - that is, removing information security oversight, consumer protection oversight and financial oversight.

Musk is financially linked to China through EV battery production. It’s no stretch of the imagination to think the PRC has some influence over him, which they’ve been building for more than a decade. So, Musk buys TikTok and expands his reach over social media (public influence), the PRC continues to have access for surveillance and influence campaigns, and Trump also benefits from the surveillance and influence. Everybody gets a piece of the action, and the federal agencies which would investigate, expose and attempt to block these relationships are disabled.

So… we’re just doing blatant bribery out in the open now?

Cool. Cool, cool, cool.

What I haven’t seen in the discussions here so far is that Chromium is the web engine that most mobile apps are built on (you don’t build your own special web client to access the server for your app, you just use an existing system for that). Also it’s the engine used for most web apps for embedded/standalone/IoT devices. The Electron application framework has Chromium embedded in it for web access - every Electron app uses Chromium. If your climate control device has a little touchscreen and smart features it’s probably using a web app that runs in an embedded instance of Chromium. Basically any device that has a GUI and links to cloud services is probably doing the same thing.

Bluntly, when it comes to client-side access to web services, Chromium matters more than Firefox, and anything that happens with it is far more impactful because it applies to a broader context than just people using Chrome for regular web browsing.

It could be important in the future that you at least indicated to Meta that you wanted your information deleted, even if they don’t actually remove it from their servers.

If you just get banned then you don’t have that record of deleting your account, and Meta has no obligation to remove any of your information.

Google just lost a lawsuit about user data

Act your wage.

the future

Is your refrigerator running?