I wasn’t certain what the bitwarden clients were licensed under.

…but if they’re all GPL, then yeah - it’ll just get forked. Just like terraform vs opentufu. Just like MySQL vs MariaDB - it’s a tale as old as time (unfortunately).

Narrator: …but it did.

I’m amazed that vaultwarden has maintained such fantastic compatibility with bitwarden. …but all it takes is one api with an obfuscated “signed request” to bring it all down.

Pro-tip: Depending on the country you moved to and if your child has U.S. citizenship, you can file for a Child Tax Credit and get up to $2200 per child per year.

Has anyone found an effective way to pair-up and “learn” the syntax faster/better compared to not using AI?

I’ve written a lot of code in the past, but recently started doing more with golang… and have been using AI for an assist, but at the end of the day (and enough reiterations) - it creates readable and maintainable code. But (unfortunately), I don’t think I could rewrite it.

I was contemplating seeing how I could change my workflow, so I’d write the code, but AI would offer fast guidance.

Thanks for sharing links to this project.

I’ve always been kind of curious, why their wasn’t an OSS possibility to “download” chunks of aggregated search content.

I know that technically it would be a challenge, but forcing crawler after crawler to fetch the exact same content (again and again), is also rather inefficient.

Now, we need a browser extension that can do this in real-time.

I completely agree.

…and as soon as OpenNIC takes their SSL/TLS Cert generator out of experimental and into something stable - we can start.

Privacy concerned people can start to rebuild the internet based on the original principles of “sharing information and ideas”, rather than " maximizing engagement ".

edit: a word

… 'cause I always keep forgetting my password.

I am curious to see if/how this’ll open up some android devices.

…and Big Tech (there user tracking/profiling becomes much more valuable when there is a real name associated with it).

I think the OP is suggesting that Windows OS has been/is a loss leader for Microsoft.

(Akin to Costco selling hot dogs for cheap)

The Microsoft playbook was “make windows accessible, then use it as a platform to up sell Office, Exchange, etc”.

Now with their shift and focus into the cloud and cloud subscriptions. All the users need is a web browser and a dumb terminal: they don’t have to run windows anymore.

Thus, Microsoft’s investment in Windows and developing and cough testing cough a platform that will never be profitable is only costing MS money.

And in order to try to gain some net profit from Windows, they’re turning it into the GeoCities of ad-ridden Operating Systems.

To expand on this a bit:

It’s all built on top of the concept of “a chain of trust”, starting at the hardware level.

(as mentioned) TPM is a chip that’ll store encryption keys at a hardware level and retrieval of these keys can only happen if the hardware is unmodified.

I assume that part of this key is derived from aspects of your OS (ie: all device drivers are signed by MS).

The OS will fetch this key, if it’s valid - the OS knows that the hardware is untampered, it can then verify that the OS is unmodified, which can then be used by application to determine that their not modified, etc.

Now you could spoof your own TPM chip (similar to how Switch 1’s are chipped/nodded), but the deal-breaker is that when you add your key to the TPM chip, you sign it with a hardware vendor specific public key. And that vendor private key is baked into the hardware (often into the CPU, so the private key never crosses the hardware bus).

It’s totally possible to achieve. TPM is the desktop equivalent of the technology that runs on your cellphone to have apps detect if you have an unlocked bootloader or root. It’s the same technology prevents your favorite concole (ie: switch 2, ect) from running pirated games.

This improved security does come at a price: we/the users are the enemy and cannot be trusted. This means modifying your system will be prohibited and we (the consumer) will have to trust that Big Tech has our best interests in mind. /s

While the BitTorrent angle is not new, the authors previously only included a ‘distribution’ claim based on direct copyright infringement. This claim has a higher evidence standard, as it typically requires evidence that the infringer shares a whole work with a third party.

Since BitTorrent transfers break up files into smaller chunks before they are shared, it might be difficult to prove that a whole work is shared.

If the case sides with Meta, I can see future defenses pouring in “Ya, see your honor - I’m innocent cause I only seeded 99.99% of that movie.”