Honestly, no. People are pretty bad at filtering for Unicode alternative characters. It can be worked around when the site admins understand what’s going on, but…have fun skimming all of the Unicode code pages for every possible lookalike character.

The headline undersells the outcome by a lot.

As part of the judgment by the US District Court of Rhode Island, Tropic Haze was issued with a permanent injunction preventing it from offering or marketing Yuzu or any of its source code in the future.

Its members are also prevented from creating any future software that circumvents Nintendo’s technical protection, and Tropic Haze must surrender all website domains and information related to its emulator.

Ownership of all related websites and domains must be turned over, and the developers are barred from further participation in “creating any future software that circumvents Nintendo’s technical protection”.

The wording of the actual settlement will be key here, which we are unlikely to ever see. At a minimum it puts significant controls on how the individual developers can interact with the Nintendo emulation community, if not outright prevents them from contributing code to most Nintendo based emulators. It almost certainly increases their individual liabilities if they are caught assisting such a project again, as they will be forced defend how their contributions don’t violate the settlement. And that’s just to avoid stiffer penalties being thrown at them.

The title of that article does not support its conclusion. Lazy pasting what I commented the last time I saw this.

Nothing has changed for LTS at all. Scroll down to the pretty graphs on https://ubuntu.com/about/release-cycle, and pay particular attention to how the ratio of orange to purple on the LTS graphs has changed over time. (it hasn’t) The base LTS support window has always been 5 years, and the extended window has always been another 5 years.

What they did add was additional security updates for Universe packages, which are represented by the black line. Note that this black line is independent of the LTS coverage. From https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/ubuntu-pro-faq/34042:

Your Ubuntu LTS is still secured in exactly the same way it has always been, with five years of free security updates for the ‘main’ packages in the distribution, and best-effort security coverage for everything else. This has been the promise of Ubuntu since our first LTS in 2006, and remains exactly the same. In fact, thanks to our expanded security team, your LTS is better secured today than ever before, even without Ubuntu Pro.

Ubuntu Pro is an additional stream of security updates and packages that meet compliance requirements such as FIPS or HIPAA, on top of an Ubuntu LTS. Ubuntu Pro was launched in public beta on 5 October, 2022, and moved to general availability on 26 January, 2023. Ubuntu Pro provides an SLA for security fixes for the entire distribution (‘main and universe’ packages) for ten years, with extensions for industrial use cases.

You can also dig into this AskUbuntu answer for even more details, but the long and short of it is this has no impact on Ubuntu LTS whatsoever. Keep using it if that is your thing. Keep using something else if it is not.

This old news will become newsworthy if Canonical starts shifting packages out of the main repo and into universe, which would in fact reduce the security update coverage of LTS releases. That said, the article has not asserted any evidence of this. Nothing to see here…for now.

It is not. The headline is completely inaccurate.

Nothing has changed for LTS at all. Scroll down to the pretty graphs on https://ubuntu.com/about/release-cycle, and pay particular attention to how the ratio of orange to purple on the LTS graphs has changed over time. (it hasn’t) The base LTS support window has always been 5 years, and the extended window has always been another 5 years.

What they did add was additional security updates for Universe packages, which are represented by the black line. Note that this black line is independent of the LTS coverage. From https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/ubuntu-pro-faq/34042:

Your Ubuntu LTS is still secured in exactly the same way it has always been, with five years of free security updates for the ‘main’ packages in the distribution, and best-effort security coverage for everything else. This has been the promise of Ubuntu since our first LTS in 2006, and remains exactly the same. In fact, thanks to our expanded security team, your LTS is better secured today than ever before, even without Ubuntu Pro.

Ubuntu Pro is an additional stream of security updates and packages that meet compliance requirements such as FIPS or HIPAA, on top of an Ubuntu LTS. Ubuntu Pro was launched in public beta on 5 October, 2022, and moved to general availability on 26 January, 2023. Ubuntu Pro provides an SLA for security fixes for the entire distribution (‘main and universe’ packages) for ten years, with extensions for industrial use cases.

You can also dig into this AskUbuntu answer for even more details, but the long and short of it is this has no impact on Ubuntu LTS whatsoever. Keep using it if that is your thing. Keep using something else if it is not.

Edit: This old news will become newsworthy if Canonical starts shifting packages out of the main repo and into universe, which would in fact reduce the security update coverage of LTS releases. That said, the article has not asserted any evidence of this. Nothing to see here…for now.

It was a multi-prong attack. The goal was to generate uncertainty in the validity of results certified by the states, and create a justification for Mike Pence to delay certification.

Run a search on mike pence delay certification fake electors and take your pick.

Vote for useful things and voting reform at the local level.

Vote for whatever keeps the system itself functioning at the federal level. If one party’s leaders are in bed with “presidents for life” or the authoritarian governments that were ratfucked to make them presidents for life, you are going to end up with a president for life.

Important to note: If enough states enact voting reform at the local level, you no longer need a constitutional amendment to have voting reform that influences the federal level. If you are looking for real change, this is where it is. It is slow and unsexy, but don’t bitch about your federal vote meaning nothing if you’re not doing anything with your local elections.

Supervillain is giving him too much credit. I’ll grant you that he’s a cartoon character, but cartoon supervillains have more complexity than him.

Kanye and Musk embody a nearly identical archetype and we’d have the exact same problem if they ran for president and succeeded. The cult of personality that follows shitty celebrities is a self-perpetuating one. It’s rooted in nasty people admiring how important people can be nasty like them but without tangible social consequences. They form a mob around their cult heroes for that exact reason, strength in numbers. A safe space for the trash of humanity.

People in politics and business find Trump useful because he’ll open doors for them in exchange for attention. They get cozy with leading him around by the nose with that attention until they forget that he will backstab them when they stop giving him that attention or there is more value in betraying them. Musk does the exact same shit, so again, I don’t think that Trump himself is worthy of being viewed in the light you’re giving him. Similarly shitty celebrities are drop in replacements for him, and worse, they might be more intelligent in their cruelty.

The people that cancel good people are shitbags.

Relativity remains a factor. One mob’s shitbag is another mob’s hero. One mob’s wish for freedom of thought is another mob’s moral depravity.

Cancelling is just an added nuance on gossip and dogpiling, and those have been around since we’ve been knocking rocks together. It happens whenever a person publicly acknowledges an opinion that angers a tribe enough to single someone out. It doesn’t matter whether that person is a long-time resident or a passing visitor. The more it goes against their social values, the more popular it becomes in the gossip, and the more people share it with each other as the story takes on a life of its own. Details get changed. Maybe it started with a lie or misconception to begin with and grew from there. None of that matters when people start shunning you in public or knocking on your door with torches in hand.

The only added nuance of cancelling over traditional gossip is the pervasiveness of the internet, and the distance at which people can socially band together to shun you. Most importantly, gossip has never required someone to be a good or bad person. It just needs someone to be the target of a rumor (truthful or otherwise) that pisses a lot of people off.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ceiling+cat&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images

As others have already covered, everything we do comes with risk. Some people go through life without spending much thought on those risks, and if they’re lucky they never have to deal with these things. Others let it weigh upon them heavily, and it’s fairly evident that you fall into the latter camp.

You’ve caught on to the general theme though, which is that the more of yourself you put out there needlessly, the greater a possibility for negative things to happen as a result of that. I’m not going to ask you to wave a magic wand and become the type of person who doesn’t worry about those things, so here are the best compromises:

• Quality over quantity with your friends. Find some good people you can be yourself around, and don’t stress over having fewer people that you hang out with than others. It’s not a competition and it doesn’t make you an inferior person.

• Minimize how much you “put yourself out there”. The internet wasn’t around 25 years ago, and when it was young it was common sense to use an alias on the internet wherever possible. Use different nicknames on different websites to minimize the ability of casual bad actors to link your identities between different social forums. The possibility of database leaks doxxing the e-mail address you signed up with is still there, but thwarting the low effort attempts does a lot on its own. You can go through the effort of registering with different e-mail addresses as well, but there is a point of diminishing returns here and you need to decide where to draw the line for yourself.

• Remove yourself from online discussions when it’s healthy to do so. Assert your opinion, clarify your points if they need clarifying, and move on. Turn off notifications once you’re past that point. Winning arguments on the internet is not realistically a thing that happens, and notifications on your mobile device from an argument will needlessly pull you back into a place of anxiety. Considering how little those mobile notifications contribute to your positive frame of mind, it’s best to be rid of them completely if you ever find them having a negative impact on your day to day life.

Edit:

• Put yourself out there when you feel strongly that it is important to do so. Some causes are worth weathering the consequences, and you shouldn’t let a fear of consequences completely cripple you when you feel strongly enough about something. Will your friends have your back if you stick your foot into it? Then go for it.

It means you aren’t suited to run a public facing business. There’s nothing wrong with that, but speaking as someone with a lot of social anxiety baggage there are things I’m equipped to do well and things that I’m not. I shouldn’t let that stop me from opening a business if I really want to, but if I simply don’t want to deal with the social rejection elements I have to accept that I’m better off letting someone else run that side of a business.

As for the non-business elements of your question, all you can really do is conduct yourself in a way that you don’t believe you’ll find yourself regretting later. If you say something in a public place, especially online, consider it part of the public record. It can and will come back to bite you later. Assume your [morally positive family member here] is always watching.

I’m also here to expose bad excuses.

Not being able to help someone who is refusing to provide technical detail is a pretty damn good excuse in this industry.

If your goal is to expose the bad excuses of others, step one is to put in as much effort as you’re expecting from others. :P

Edit for good measure: (links fixed, forgot about direct linking comments from outside of a lemmy instance)

• Your instance was not federating with lemmy.world. [1]
• You assumed that the blame had to rest on lemmy.world because you had “eliminate[d] all the possibilities [you] had at hand”. [2]
• You made this post to vent about a bunch of unrelated nonsense and refused to provide technical detail that would assist the admins in troubleshooting. It’s a given fact that your privacy is your choice, but it’s also a given that you shouldn’t be a dick about it if you choose to withhold details, even from PM. For the record, the information being requested was the bare minimum for an instance administrator to troubleshoot network interactions with a remote instance.
• A random (but cool) third party identified the issue with your instance not federating. [3]
• Instead of apologizing, you proceeded to act like you were entitled to that solution from the admins you wrongly accused. [4] You are not god’s gift to the internet and they are not technical support for your instance.

There’s no room for niceties here, you are either an asshole in denial or some brat who is too young to know any better. Sleep on it. Come to terms with that fact and make good on it, or don’t. You aren’t worth anyone’s energy, and I’m only bothering with this summary for everyone else’s sake. Your problem is fixed, it was never on lemmy.world’s side to begin with, and somehow you are still acting like the failure of the admins to figure out what was busted with your shit is some Sherlock gotcha moment.

I am unaffiliated with lemmy.world and my toxicity does not represent the opinions of the admins. (but they’re probably thinking it)

In my work, when someone comes to me and assumes I or my team is screwing up because they “eliminated all possibilities at hand” 90% of the time, they screwed up and didn’t realize it.

Yeah, at that point the onus is on the person putting forth the problem to show their work. Start listing off possibilities that you’ve eliminated. You can have thirty years of technical experience and still be completely useless by assuming that you’re just as smart as the person you’re explaining the problem to.

“I did eliminate all the possibilities I had at hand”? Naw man, anyone dropping that line has only eliminated all possibilities that they can think of, and all of that supposed thinking about “all the possibilities” is worthless if they aren’t going to offer it up as a starting point.

She should be punished for mishandling classified information, as much as Trump should be punished for using an unsecured phone for his presidential duties. As we keep saying in this thread, it’s possible to have a consistent opinion in all of this.

Next you have to prove that her servers were handled that way for the purpose of tampering with evidence in a court of law. Y’know, like people are trying to do right now with Trump? The problem here is the matter of proof. It’s unfortunate for Trump that his lackeys were caught trying to destroy evidence and, y’know, left behind evidence of trying to do so, but that’s what it takes to prosecute someone for that particular crime.

Let me reframe the question for you. Do we think Hilary and her aides should be prosecuted if evidence supported targeted tampering instead of incompetence? Yes. If it was deliberate, is it a shitty thing that she and her staff were not prosecuted because there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction? Also yes.

which you seem to think is the case, and that it’s good, somehow.

Imagine licking the boot so bad that you twist two trillion dollars going up in smoke into a win

We seem to keep coming back to how I supposedly think or assumptions about why I was asking the question. Either you have confused me for the original person you were replying to, or you’re jackhammering straw men onto anything they might stick to while making a conscious choice to be a tool about it.

As you were.

No, was asking you for your thoughts on this specific sentence, on its own:

Do you think the pentagon has EVER passed an audit?

Which you did eventually stumble into, but not before engaging in some mental gymnastics for the sake of accusing me of mental gymnastics. Thanks, sort of?

What feedback do you have on the first sentence, which is not hyperbole? Honestly curious. You appear to have very strong opinions on this topic, but you aren’t replying to any of the comments pointing out 33 years worth of failed audits.

Is this most recent one particularly suspect compared to audits that have come before it, and more sketchy than ones that have failed during administrations run by the other party?

A friend of mine does too.

I’m ready to form a supervillain league with the sole motivation of performing unethical research experiments on your kind. This power must be brought to the masses!

Ok but to balance it: it forces you to confront your own on the topic as well.

I was actually tempted to include that in the original, but I didn’t want to belabor it. :)

I’m fine with this, and would prefer it that way.

Ability to force anyone to objectively confront their own cognitive dissonance by maintaining eye contact.

Possibly too powerful. Some heads may spontaneously combust from a lifetime of preferring their own reality.