I agree it would be best for Wikipedia to address this on their end, but I have actually no idea where to begin with asking them to make a change like this.

It actually does switch automatically on mobile, just not desktop, which is why I get annoyed enough when it happens to mention it.

Please, anyone who reads this, stop posting links to the mobile version of Wikipedia. It doesn’t switch automatically on PC, and I see it happen all the time. Just take the half a second to remove the “.m” from the beginning of the link, save everyone else from the pain of having to be surprised by it and taking the time to do it themselves.

What do you mean unless it was also from a ballot measure? I’d say it should override laws even from a ballot measure since the new ballot measure is more recent, though in that case it would be best to communicate that the new ballot measure is overriding the old one just for clarity sake.

Perpetual licences have their place, like I’m reasonably confident under the hood you have a perpetual licences for the OS your phone runs on. The point isn’t to get a piece of software that will be updated and supported forever, it’s to get something that works, fits your needs, and that you know can’t just be revoked at the whim of another. Problem is that last one is becoming increasingly untrue.

I mean fuck AT&T, but fuck needless consolidation, pointless service bundling, and revocation of perpetual licences even more.

I for one would be fine with a digital ID to be used for even age verification, so long as it is only used for verification and is completely detached from any other form of identification. Honestly I’m getting kinda sick of rumors of Russian and Chinese trolls, true or not, as well as AI commenters influencing genuine discourse.

Au contraire, the devil absolutely needs an advocate, to make sure he’s being called out on the right bullshit and not just whatever accusation is thrown his way.

It’s the argument a lot of politicians are making, that once platforms start curating user generated content they become responsible for it despite section 230. I think it’s bullshit, but it is the argument being made.

I’m pretty sure that exists and is just called unlisted, or if you only want them to be available to yourself private.

It’s uncommon, but certainly not unheard of.

IIRC it’s technically proper to still use that title for former presidents, but very few actually do out of justified distaste for the man himself, along with the fact that it’s definitely not a good idea to say anything that might imply you think he’s still actually the president.

Isn’t that because Microsoft either pays system integrators to only install Windows or threatens that they will stop providing relatively cheap Windows keys if they provide the option to start with Linux? I could have sworn I’d heard that somewhere.

That’s not the kind of data they’re looking for, if you post it somewhere publicly available they already have that without a warrant or anything. The kind of data to be worried about is the kind that those companies collect about where you travel and when, and what kind of people you talk to through email or private messages. Even if you don’t think there’s anything incriminating in there, law enforcement loves to collect evidence that they think can be used to pin any crime on anybody, even if they don’t know what that crime is exactly.

Reading the article does make it sound like it’s either that, or having google allow other app stores to be downloaded via the play store and give them the same level of access to other apps that the play store gets, I assume for things like automatic updates.

I mean, that’s kinda exactly what I said, Apple taking a 30% cut of any transaction that occurs on their devices/on apps downloaded from their store makes no sense, though I will add that Patreon takes a 8 - 12% cut depending on how much support they give the creator. As far as Steam goes, to my knowledge they don’t take a cut out of in game purchases, only purchases that occur strictly on their platform. (Also I don’t think they charge everyone the 30%)

30% is a reasonably cut for transactions that take place in your store, the main complaint I see about Apple and their store and the cut they take is that they want 30% of any money that goes through any of their devices at all, not just their app store. Relevant here, they are charging the 30% fee for people’s memberships to creators on the platform, a process that is wholly separate from Apple’s ecosystem unless the user is using apple pay to pay for it.

Ok, why is there an RSS feed button is my question.

That’s a bit of a disingenuous way to put it, it’s reads to me more that they want to reach out/make official what some people were already doing.

The lawyers are there to safely burn everything to the ground, because if they have been brought in everything is already fucked beyond any hope of repair.