DEADMINCE

> Well, my local directory is `~/local`. So that's not where I want it.

You can just move it after. .local is different from local so there is no clash.

There's good reason you might not want that behavior, and no reason to enforce it. Booting an alternate OS doesn't interrupt Windows update operations.

> I think Windows even does this now.

Why? What advantage is there for Windows to do this?

> I love Linux, but it would not exist without corporate sponsors.

Of course it would, for it already did. It might not be as polished, and there would be more issues with hardware, but it would certainly still exist, and even thrive. Because enough people want it and can put in the manpower to create it.

> but there's really no possibility a social media platform (or the internet at-large) could adopt a similar strategy.

By decentralizing it could.

> Hosting is expensive

Decentralizing would work around that.

> Blind authoritarianism is ironically one of it's strongest defenses.

The strongest defense is GPL, because if a company tried to do that then the same thing that happened with nginx would happen.

> The decentralized internet, the blockchain, the darkweb and I2P all need someone to pay for hosting costs.

With a properly designed protocol these costs would be neglibile.

> Just to be clear, this is signing for validation

Yup. I was just referencing wanting to obtain keys from the TPM to decrypt a partition. This is useful for me to have the following setup:

- Laptop turned on, no keys pressed, boots into super locked down guest OS.

- Laptop turned on, certain key pressed within 2 seconds, boot into 'hidden' OS.

- In both cases, HDD is encrypted, decrypted automatically via retrieving keys stored in the TPM. This means the harddrive cannot be read outside of that particular laptop, unless keys are extracted from the TPM.

- Bootloader signed with own key, any and all existing keys wiped, so laptop cannot be booted with any external OS.

How would I recreate that setup with nmbl?

That's a good link by the way, thanks - saved.

Man that's cool. Not for me personally as I need a display and not glasses, but it's cool we have so much computer power in such portable formats now.

I love that we have pretty powerful laptops with 20 hours of battery that only weigh a pound or so. I remember 20 years ago lugging around a 2kh brick with only 2 hours of battery.

I think we probably agree with each other. Even with UBI, I do think it makes sense to have some degree of copyright. Just to allow creatives room to breath and tell stories they want to tell without their narratives by more popular forks. That argument is a different issue altogether, though, I think, and we are nowhere near being in a context where we need to figure it out.

I do think UBI should be a minimum, and people should still receive compensation for work they produce that people enjoy. Just not exclusive rights and perpetual royalties and all this nonsense.

Infiltrate, sure, but not control.

I agree that would be fantastic, but I would like something with protection against interference baked into the design, rather than having to rely on goodwill.

What am I missing? The social account of the mother of a teen that killed herself due to bulling was ordered to have her social media accounts shut down, even though she wasn't posting anything to target the girls who did the bullying.

Why does a comment saying maybe the government shouldn't have that power not make sense in this context?

One comment made an unreasonable assumption/interpretation, and the commentators are talking about that.

I would think most people reading it understand it just fine but don't have a reason to leave a comment.