I prefer physical keyboards, too, as do many others. It turns out those of us who spend a lot of time composing text are outnumbered by those who do more content consumption, though, so the surface area is given to touchscreens, and profit-driven manufacturers seldom bother with keyboard models any more.

As for light quality, yep, incandescent bulbs were generally more pleasant. But not so much better as to justify the pollution now that we have 8 billion people on this planet.

deleted by creator

I guess you’re implying that rough service bulbs use more power at any given light output? Because I know from experience that they are much more sturdy than typical household bulbs. That’s not a myth.

I think we have been able to manufacture sturdier incandescent bulbs for a long time. The “rough service” bulbs made for appliances do pretty well, for example.

I’m not sure why the technology didn’t become common. I would guess that cheap and frequently replaced bulbs making more profit probably has something to do with it.

I’ve been using GE Relax HD most recently. I don’t remember when I bought them, but it has been at least 5 years. I haven’t had one die yet.

(All the Cree bulbs I used before these died quickly.)

Edit: I have read that LED bulbs usually die early because of their driver circuitry running too hot. If you are able to give yours better ventilation, it might help.

My approach with companies that do this: Contact them, explain that I will not be giving them any money due to this aggressive anti-privacy practice, and take my business elsewhere.

Facebook/Meta (the owners of Instagram) have been extorting phone numbers and IDs from people for years. They don’t target everyone all at once, but a few hundred here, a few hundred there. I don’t know if they do it for all new accounts, but the practice is definitely not new.

This is one of the many reasons why I stopped using their services.

Is this what I think it is?

click, control-f, entanglement

Yep. The core discovery is not exactly news if you’ve been following this stuff, but still very cool.

https://xcancel.com/rcbregman/status/1868015427332255863

This is not about technology. It’s about a corporation buying political favour.

!politics@lemmy.world

This article is not about technology. Next time, please go here:

!business@lemmy.world

It is true. I said can retain data indefinitely, not will retain data forever.

(And in any case, being pedantic here misses the point.)

Perhaps because they still work?

And, unlike flash storage, magnetic media can retain data indefinitely when stored without power.

What disposable email address provider is accepted at sites that reject SimpleLogin?

Why would they do that? They are probably american feds.

Maybe, but I can think of another possibility:

There is a certain personality type that loves to feel like an authority in whatever community they frequent, and will jump at the chance to criticize someone whose concerns, experiences, or approach to solving a problem differs from their own. It has been very common in tech support forums for ages, and I think it’s becoming common in privacy forums as the topic becomes important to more people.

So, while it’s possible that some of what you are describing comes from government agency-sponsored influence campaigns (this would not surprise me), I strongly suspect that at least some of it is just mundane egotism. There are a lot of jerks on the internet. Many of them even believe they’re being helpful.

Whatever the reason for it, I agree with you: Those people should be told to knock it off, and if they don’t, then they should be shown to the door.

Why not just point Firefox at the proxy address in its Connection Settings, instead of trying to force it with containers?

Are you trying to prevent Firefox from ignoring its proxy setting to do something sneaky?

any instance a user federates with gets a gigantic copy of all of their metadata,

No, it does not. Instances get metadata only for the chat rooms in which they participate, not all of a user’s metadata.

When chatting with someone on Matrix like you would with text messaging, only your instance and your contact’s instance are involved. Because they have to be, in order to exchange messages. Just like every other chat protocol that uses servers, including XMPP.

I would get 12mm screws of the same thread pitch (M2 is common) and file 0.5mm off the ends.

If you don’t want to file them by hand, you could ask someone with access to a grinder for help. They could probably do it in a few seconds if the screws are not stainless steel. Your local bicycle shop might have one, since this is a fairly common operation on spokes.

This article mentions using Global Privacy Control as a replacement for Do Not Track, but doesn’t bother to explain what GPC does. Its adjacent article incorrectly claims that GPC uses the DNT: 1 header field, fails to explain further, and links to a Mozilla page that doesn’t explain it, either.

Even the GPC web site fails here, offering several pages of vague, abstract fluff about their intentions and a useless document full of marketing industry acronyms, without anything substantial about how it works. The single mention of a spec fails to state where to find it. The closest it comes is a tangential sentence containing a broken github.io link.

Finally, and only because I happen to know github.io’s URL format, I was able to guess my way to an organization page, and from there to a project page, which has a README file containing a footnote linking to the proposed spec:

https://w3c.github.io/gpc/

Geez… it’s as though the people involved don’t want anyone to know how this proposed safeguard is supposed to work.

After reading it, it looks like these are the main differences in Global Privacy Control vs. Do Not Track:

• Replaces the DNT: 1 header field with Sec-GPC: 1.
• Adds a javascript property to indicate the same thing.
• Does not honor preference changes after the first navigation to a site. (Having changes respected apparently requires clearing site data from the browser and reloading. A helpful browser might prompt the user to do this.)
• Defines a way for sites to indicate that they are aware of GPC (but does not require them to honor it).
• Expresses a wish that your data not be shared, but says nothing about it being collected.
• May be considered legally binding in some jurisdictions. It’s not clear whether the few that currently recognize it will enforce it in any meaningful way.

I would like to know the answer to this:

It’s unclear what will happen to users who have DNT enabled when they upgrade to the affected Firefox version. They may see a message stating that “Firefox no longer supports Do Not Track,” or the signal may still be sent to websites. We have asked Mozilla to clarify this and will provide an update when we receive a response.