Yeah, why not have a text field that allows you to input an integer between 0 and 100?

In general if your OS is intact you can just boot into a live USB and chroot and reinstall grub, worst case scenario if you can’t fix it in a less destructive way.

I never stated what was or wasn’t moral; I stated what was legal, and stealing is a legalistic term. How can you enforce property ownership, intellectual or material, without law, and legal rights to property?

For the record, I want the abolition of property and of law. I do not believe stealing to be wrong. “Stealing” can only be a legal category if you believe it to be morally neutral.

That definition also makes no sense. If I gift you a laptop I worked hard to afford and you use it, no sane person would call that stealing, even to those to whom stealing is a moral category. That is the same thing as someone using MIT code according to the licence. The original coder gifted the code to the public and said “I explicitly want you to use this however you like, under the sole condition that you credit me.” Just like if I gifted you a laptop I’d be saying “I want you to use this laptop however you like.”

If that’s sincerely how you see plagiarism (ie allowing someone to use your work as part of their work without attribution) then all I can say is that I’ve never seen anyone else use the term plagiarism that way; and unless either of us knows of a survey quantifying how people use the term, that’s as far as we’ll get on that front.

Anyway, the conversation is still about BSD, and you keep avoiding the fact that BSD requires attribution. If you are using the Wikipedia definition then it does not satisfy

representation of another person’s language … as one’s own original work

Do you or do you not think that BSD/MIT is plagiarism? You seem to be clearly dodging the question. If you don’t think it’s plagiarism then there’s no major disagreement and we can end this conversation.

Ok, in that case your definition is inclusive of things which are not conventionally considered plagiarism. Ghostwriting is commonly looked down upon, but not considered plagiarism. A large part of a non-legalistic definition of plagiarism includes a lack of consent from the original creator; if you take a job as a ghostwriter, you agree to your writing being published under a different name. If I work as a developer for someone who wants to make their own app, say a YouTuber, and they publish the app I wrote as <YouTuber’s> app, most people would consider that perfectly normal and not plagiaristic, since the developer was paid for a service in which it was understood their work would be published under a different person’s name.

You are also avoiding the original question about BSD and MIT, and not explaining why that is plagiaristic. Do you still think they are plagiaristic? If so, how? Given that both the licensor explicitly wanted people to be able to re-use their code in proprietary software (i.e. consent/permission exists), and these licences require attribution (i.e. not only are you not taking credit for it, you are actively naming and crediting the original author).

I don’t have a legalistic view of the world; I am saying plagiarism is a legalistic concept. For context, I support the abolition of law and of intellectual property. Plagiarism is a particular kind of violation of intellectual property law, and without IP, it makes no sense. You still fail to define a plagiarism outside of the law, and you also fail to define a plagiarism that does not violate MIT/BSD. MIT/BSD both require attribution. You cannot claim MIT/BSD code written by someone else as your own without breaking copyright law.

No, actually, plagiarism is a legalistic term. If IP law did not exist, neither would plagiarism.

And if you give someone permission to use your IP, and they go ahead and use that permission, it is not plagiarism neither legally nor by any colloquial understanding of the term. That is what happens when someone uses BSD or MIT code in their proprietary software. It is explicitly allowed, by design, by intention.

without attribution

BSD/MIT also don’t allow you to not attribute the author of the BSD/MIT code, so that doesn’t even make sense. You are perhaps thinking of code released public domain, in which case, again, the author specifically chose that over BSD/MIT, and the main practical difference is not needing to give attribution, so that must be what the original author wanted.

I know. It’s a verbal shorthand.

That is definitionally not plagiarising. It follows IP law, which is the opposite of plagiarism.

MIT/BSD also makes the most sense for small/minimal projects where GPL is likely overkill. A 100 line script does not need to be GPL’ed. A small static website does not need to be GPL’ed.

It’s not “stealing”. It’s explicitly allowed. Using IP according to its licence is the opposite of stealing.

I never made a MS account, so I no longer own Minecraft since they stopped accepting Mojang accounts. Sometimes I wish I had just bit the bullet and made one so I can still own Minecraft—I know I can pirate it, but it’s less convenient, and also I don’t know how well pirated Minecraft works with multiplayer. In any case I’ve just not played Minecraft in a long time, and not since Minecraft stopped accepting Mojang logins.

I am surprised you can’t transfer your licence to another account though. Since when they were making the switch to Microsoft accounts, they let you just transfer your licence from Mojang onto any old MS account.

Ultimately it’s up to you. I guess in your shoes I would be more erred towards deleting just because of all that personal information sitting around. Of course you can’t guarantee MS will “forget” it, but storage costs money, and they likely don’t want to keep around all your old data when most of it is not very profitable data to have. In my case, in hindsight, I’m now erring on the side of wishing I had just made an account, since there’d be no other data tied to that account and I wouldn’t have used it for anything other than Minecraft.

It’s a relatively new thing. i was watching YT for years with Mullvad with no issues then late last year started getting blocked. Right now I can only watch on either NewPipe or on the official web client while logged in.

Reddit ass post

Cops confiscate devices all the time without good reason lmao. It’s commonplace to seize devices on a person upon arrest. Judges also grant search warrants upon very little evidence too. Cops absolutely don’t need to “prove” anything to a judge to get a warrant; there is no standard of proof at all; it’s a standard of evidence, which is not the same thing as proof, and a low standard of evidence at that.

in addition to what others have said, also have your browser fingerprint as fairly generic, and what is unique should ideally be randomised upon each start of your browser. There’s nothing stopping a Lemmy instance from running clientside code that gathers your browser fingerprint, and if they are well-resourced enough to have access to fingerprint data from other sites, they could correlate it to de-anonymise you.

I didn’t start using Gentoo when I was 10. Is it over for me?

Linux phones definitely are a thing, but depending on your threat model, they may not be enough. There isn’t a smartphone which is 100% open-source from all hardware, to firmware, to software. But there’s a variety of phones that are known to run Linux. The Google Pixel 3a is known for working very well with Ubuntu Touch. There’s also the PinePhone, Purism phones, and there will be others too that support “desktop Linux” (specified for pedantry, since Android is also a type of Linux I guess).

You also don’t need a smartphone. They do still sell “dumb mobile phones” that just do SMS and phone calls; I’ve bought some recently. You can get them for really cheap too, like in the range of 20 USD/EUR kind of price. I don’t think that particularly contributes to privacy since these phones are also proprietary and easily backdoored, but I suppose then it’s missing out on much of the spyware that smartphones have installed as software. If it’s location data you’re worried about, sticking it in a faraday cage should be good enough, but if you need to receive unexpected calls that won’t work. If you’re paranoid about the mic recording, while I think that would be an unlikely and unfeasible way of spying, you could also physically block that by putting the phone in something soundproof, but again you’d need some way to hear that the phone is ringing. For camera paranoia just tape over the camera.

You mean getting a privacy-respecting phone? You could get a Pixel with GrapheneOS as one of the most popular options. There are also a number of OSes and phone manufacturers competing in the privacy-concerned market you could look into. Note that privacy is not the same thing as security, and for security, GrapheneOS is the clear winner.

Use end-to-end encrypted email if the people you’re emailing are willing to set that up (not hard, but a lot of people have learned helplessness when it comes to tech), and/or you could host your own email. I don’t think there’s much point to looking for an email provider that “respects privacy” because that’s simply working on a pinkie promise that they don’t read your unencrypted emails. I suppose it’s better if they claim they don’t read your emails, than if they don’t make that claim at all, but beyond that I don’t think it matters with external email providers.