I am not joking.

You might not be joking but you are assuming. Do you have a link to a statement by a site admin that says explicitly that is what it stands for? Otherwise you’re just speculating, and there are other reasons someone would have chosen .ml besides it standing for that.

You’re not just looking for conversation.

Unless you get a response from the site admins, anyone’s answer is pure speculation. No one is going to be able to say, definitively, why .ml was chosen, except the site admins.

My theory is: .ml domains used to be offered for free. So they made lemmy.ml for free, as it was just a toy project. Then, they upgraded to the paid .ml domain (which is how they managed to avoid the recent free .ml purge).

The “its Marxism-Leninism” could be true, but unless you get an answer from a site admin, everyone asserting that it’s true is talking out of their ass. They don’t know any more than you or I know.

• Decreased performance, as DRM is often hooked deep into event loops and adds non-negligible overhead.
• Decreased privacy, as DRM often requires pinging an external server constantly.
• Decreased security, as DRM is a black-box blob intentionally meant to be difficult to peer in to, and has been the target of attacks such as code execution vulnerabilities before.
• If you own a game but don’t have an active internet connection, DRM may prevent you from playing the game.
• If you own a game but have multiple computers, DRM may force you to buy multiple licenses when you’re only using one copy at a time (c.f., a physical CD with the game on it).
• Eventually, a DRM company is going to go out of business or stop supporting old versions of their software; if you want to play an old game that had that DRM, you won’t be able to even if you own the game.
• &c.

DRM exists to "protect’ the software developer, i.e. protect profits by making sure every copy has been paid for and to force people to buy multiple copies in certain cases. DRM never has and never will be for your (the consumer’s) benefit.

horseshoe crabs are always referred to with the word horseshoe in front

They weren’t in this case, so that “always” seems to be a stretch.

if one cares about communication.

It’s made clear in the article. If one cares about communication they’re reading past a headline.

Horseshoe “blood” is blue, and it’s not actually blood it’s hemolymph. It is blue crab blood. Blue blood from a crab.

It’s available for free on a popular “scientific research paper file sharing site”^[1] if you search for its title.

I see, thanks for the clarification. I wasn’t sure about the specifics of how they produce their product from the upstream source.

I see what you’re saying. I read it as implying the browser would fake the attestation token. I don’t know the answer, but if their (stated) goal is to stop bots and scrapers, I have to assume it wouldn’t be so simple. After all, a lot of bots and scrapers are literally running an instance of Chrome.

Search engines like DDG should really begin maintaining their own index, and they should exclude sites that use the tech from the index.

If this gets implemented, it would ruin the ability for competitor search engines (such as DDG) to exist. If Google convinces site operators to require attestation, then suddenly automated crawlers and indexers will not function. Google could say to site operators that if they wish to run ads via Google’s ad network they must require attestation; then, any third-party search indexer or crawler would be blocked from those sites. Google’s ad network is used on about 98.8% of all sites which have advertising, and about 49.5% of all websites.

Isn’t someone just going to fork Chromium, take out this stuff,

Yes, upstream Chromium forks will likely try to remove this functionality, but

put in something that spoofs the DRM to the sites so that adblocking still works?

This is the part that is not possible. The browser is not doing the attestation; it’s a third party who serves as Attestor. All the browser does is makes the request to the attestor, and passes the attestor’s results to the server you’re talking to. There is no way a change in the browser could thwart this if the server you’re talking to expects attestation.

It may be dead to its users anyway depending on how forceful Google is with this. If Brave doesn’t work on 98.8% of all websites with advertising or indeed on 49.5% of all websites (approximately Google’s ad network’s reach), it becomes as niche as lynx.

Brave is built on Chromium. So, by default, no they are not safe from this. Without extra effort, Brave will have this feature. I don’t know if its feasible but there’s a chance the Brave devs can remove the code from their distribution, but that’s the best case scenario and just puts them in the same position as Firefox: they get locked out because they refuse to implement the spec.

ISPs coming out and bothering you cause you pirate stuff? Never heard of it.

You must have the distinct privilege of not living in the USA or several other Western countries.

I’d jump ship immediately if I got one such letter.

If you mean jump ship off that ISP, there’s nothing you can do. You can go to another ISP (if there even is one in your area), who will do the exact same thing. You can jump ship entirely and not have internet, I guess.

Colloquial use of that word is not related to its technical use to describe a female dog in dog breeding. Colloquial use of the word is precisely driven by misogyny. Don’t try to play that game, it’s dishonest. Do you think the homophobic f-slur is acceptable because, after all, it is a technical term relating to bound wood fuel? If not, why is that not acceptable, but the one you’re using is? Historical linguistic justification for a word whose colloquial use has not been related to its historical meaning for a very long time is dishonest.

By “otherwise discriminatory” I meant discriminatory in ways other than the two (sexism, ableism) that I explicitly mentioned; can you not think of other ways to discriminate? “Otherwise discriminatory” can include words that are specificaly xenophobic or racist, or homophobic. I didn’t bother doing a full inventory when I was illustrating a point.

I find casual use of opaque blocklists without any second thought to their impact disturbing.

It’s not opaque. The entire block list regex is publicly visible for every single instance. In fact, it’s in the page source of every single page you load. You’re simply uninformed. Moreover, if you think there was no second thought to it’s impact, you’re yet again uninformed. There was (and has been) discussion about it amongst developers and (early) users, and discussion continues; in fact, there was a post about it with large engagement maybe three days ago.

I am not sure how I feel about enforcing a block list (and I said that in my previous comment), but one thing it does do, repeatedly, is illuminate how little people think about offensive things they say. Interestingly, more often than not, people would rather defend their use of misogynist language than consider using literally any other word in English or another language.

It’s in the blocked word list because it’s misogynist. The fact that it’s used so commonly with no second thought is disturbing.

I don’t know if I agree with the blocked word list being enforced, but I definitely have a problem with rampant misogynist, ableist, and otherwise discriminatory language used with no thought.

Mullvad does not allow port forwarding.

They announced on May 29th that they would not allow new port forwarding. On July 1st, all existing port forwarding was disabled. Since then, Mullvad no longer allows port forwarding.

What a weird take. You’re allowed to pay for whatever you’d like. Personally, I can’t afford to pay for any JetBrains product, even if I wanted to.

Not only are there alternatives which may be better overall or better suited to someone’s needs, that wasn’t even my point. My point was more that it is only temporarily free, and so the parent commenter’s comment of “it’s free” should be taken with a grain of salt if you’re considering the product.

Moreover, we’re in the Open Source community: Fleet is neither free nor open source, and pointing that out here is relevant.

Quoting JetBrains,

Fleet is free to use during the public preview

(emphasis mine)

So it is only temporarily free. Once it’s polished it will no longer be free. Better to not get tied in to something that will be taken away from you before long.

In hindsight, yes. But there was no indiciation ahead of time that this situation would happen or was likely to happen. In fact, there was no more reason to believe a free ccTLD was any more likely than a paid ccTLD to cause a problem. The problem arises because a ccTLD’s host country can choose to remove any domain it wants, paid or not. One could argue that using a ccTLD at all was a mistake, but you’d have to look at precedent for ccTLD’s country’s doing this and see if it happens often or not.

It’s not just Java. It supports a few other languages as well. I am pretty sure it supports Rust, HTML, JavaScript and maybe a couple others. It doesn’t support Python, Go, PHP, C/C++, or Ruby (as they have separate products for those).