When you organize a nonprofit, you dedicate it to the public benefit. it’s not supposed to ever have owners, everything it does it supposed to be for me and you. as far as I’m concerned, this is a multi billion dollar larceny against the general public and we really need better laws that preserve our nonprofit institutions. Just even trying to plan this out is a crime against humanity

why do you think the Mozilla corporation losing 86% of their revenue wouldn’t hurt the Firefox browser?

I personally have not found Kagi’s default search results to be all that impressive, contrary to what most users seem to feel. I don’t know. When ddg and Google fail me, I will try Kagi and I think maybe only once or twice has it actually made finding what I’m looking for any easier.

I will mention though, you can do a lot of personalization on the results unlike other engines. So maybe if I took the time to customize, I might feel differently.

I think that if any company wants to write off any intellectual property that they have the copyrights to, it should have to become public domain

The fact alone that they were storing your name in the first place means that was always possible. Frankly, this isn’t anything to be concerned about anymore than being concerned about trusting literally any private business that doesn’t publicly document their data retention practices and also subject themselves to routine audits. You should be concerned about that though by the way. But my advice is to not wait around for it to become obvious.

If any publisher (in this case, a lemmy instance) does not require the author to consciously consent to assigning the copyright of the comments to the publisher or some other entity, then by default the copyright of the comment is retained by the author who is allowed to write literally whatever licenses they like and as many licenses as they like for however many people they want.

https://gizmodo.com/who-actually-owns-your-content-when-you-post-it-to-the-1819953868

In the early days […] we often received a question along the lines of “I love the product and what Proton stands for, but how do I know you will still be around to protect my data 10 years from now?” […] Ten years and 100 million accounts later, we would like to think we have proven the point with our track record, but actually the question is just as relevant today as it was 10 years ago[.] […] Proton was not created to get rich[, …] but rather to address the […] problem of surveillance capitalism. […] Proton has always been about the mission and putting people ahead of profits […] and there is no price at which we would compromise our integrity. Frankly speaking, […] if the goal was to sell for a bunch of money, we could have done that long ago. […] Most businesses are built to be sold — we built Proton to serve the mission.

My problem is there’s literally ways you can organize a business that makes literally impossible to legally do these things. When businesses say these things, but don’t acknowledge the reality that they could always recharter the business in such a manner where you don’t just have to trust them to behave with no recourse if they don’t, I always have to add “but we still will continue to reserve the right to sell you out but pinky promise we won’t ever do it”

Not super familiar with EU law, but it was my understanding that a company that wants to be allowed to operate in the EU can’t just start violating an EU citizen’s EU granted rights just because aren’t literally geographically inside the EU at the time of the rights violation.

In other words, it’s my understanding that Apple would be liable for damages if, for instance, an EU citizen on vacation suddenly lost access to alternative app stores and such.

Yet again, we lack the only detail anyone actually cares about: how does Apple plan on actually limiting this functionality to the EU?

It’s difficult for me to imagine how they can comply with this but only for EU customers in a manner which can’t be easily circumvented. It kind of bothers me that journalists just parrot “these changes will not be coming to jurisdictions outside of the EU” uncritically, seemingly just completely taking for granted the idea that there’s not going to be any way to benefit from this if you don’t live in the EU.

I hate this article because of the title. I clicked this honestly because I was expecting to learn something outrageous about the pricing, but Microsoft hasn’t even announced it yet, just that it’s not going to be free. The journalist here could have just wrote in the title that it’s going to cost money, and left it at that. If they wanted to do a real good job, within the article they could even share what the Windows 7 version of the program cost people to help give a sense for what we should expect. But they didn’t even do that.

Anyway, here’s the latest information from Microsoft:

https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/windows-it-pro-blog/plan-for-windows-10-eos-with-windows-11-windows-365-and-esu/ba-p/4000414

“Could” as if there’s a possibility it will respect your privacy lmfao

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

I mean I never told you not to rename them lmfao. You just said “I can’t stand the titles on torrents” like people just made these really long filenames for shits and giggles. Also lots of torrent sites will feature several different kinds of rips. It’s not very convenient on the back end to have all rips of the same movie have the same file name.

Also “calm down”? Idk I thought I gave a pretty chill explanation of why things are the way they are but sorry if it didn’t come across that way.

“Titles”? It’s not a title, it’s a file name that contains a lot of details about the rip. In the post’s example it tells you that it’s the movie Split, ripped from blu ray, in 1080p, with audio tracks in Italian and English, and encoded in x265. You probably would hate a lot more not being able to tell the difference between split.mp4 recorded on my cellphone in the movie theater and split.mp4 in ultra hd 4k ripped straight from Netflix.