the fact this is even being suggested shows a lack of familiarity with Australia's position on asylum seekers.
People from war-torn countries or fleeing genocide are held in international-law-violating limbo for decades, there's no chance in hell that somebody from a developed country is getting political asylum here, especially with the current poisoned rhetoric on immigration.
do you have hypoxia or something? Jesus christ
absolutely. I had tried Linux on various machines long ago but was one of the people that was put off by older distro's learning curves - I'm now daily driving Linux on both my laptop and desktop and the main push for the switch is microsoft fucking around with settings, installing candy crush after updates (on a paid OS), adding more and more dumb, unsolicited, privacy invading AI bullshit with every feature update, and running like shit on a perfectly adequate machine.
Modern Linux, with flatpak support? I haven't looked back once - had to help a friend fix something on a win11 desktop recently and was reminded of every reason I made the switch. Even if I had to jump in the terminal every day like long ago, it would still be worth it to not have bing, copilot, and edge rammed down my throat, whether I want them or not.
Windows is getting so shitty that completely non-technical users are tired of it.... as soon as somewhat open minded users start to experiment and realise that Linux feature and UX parity has been achieved - I hope microsoft fucking collapses and we can all finally walk into the sunlight that open source OSes and software represent.
I mean, technically - the most secure option is irrevocably destroying the laptop everytime you have a break.
dont know why youre being downvoted, this is completely true. The majority of people favour the convenience that streaming has represented, and TVs have been designed to turn on showing a shiny netflix icon instead of "Composite II" for like a decade now.
Yes, while consumers have been sold a double-edged sword/lie - the streaming companies were obviously never going to market their platforms by saying "one downside of streaming is we can take away content whenever we like".
The average person with a bluray collection is going to be much more aware of the pros and cons of the formats - I'd be willing to guess most peoples family "collections" are still on DVD.
The issue is WhatsApp from a few years ago versus WhatsApp today - meta/favebook is probably the worst possible company to have bought it, their record on security, privacy, and features is horrible.
The app today is full of enshitification (meta ai being shoved down my throat by the communication monopoly) and nobody can ever fully trust their security or privacy because its not open source.
Signal sadly doesn't yet have the ubiquity of whatsapp - but for everyone that has it (now I'm finding even non tech-savvy family are switching over) use signal, and where you have to, use WhatsApp.
imessage is no better in that case - and outside America barely anybody still uses either SMS or RCS, apple is a smaller share of the market meaning the ubiquity of imessage isn't there.
If you want anything beyond SMS which is a universal standard, you both have to be using the same service - I'm just saying that signal is available for anyone who wants to use it.
I was also upset at the removal of texting from signal, but in hindsight its for the best - if its a secure message service that youre not charged per message to use, the support of a dying platform which is difficult to distinguish when in use is an issue - now its extremely clear whether youre reaching someone through signal or text, cause signal only sends signal messages.
Signal is better than any other common alternative, and its on both android and ios
if the market allows it. That's the point, the market works fine to incentivise me in choosing fruit loops over other cereals - but if the market is captured, monopolised, or poorly regulated, market forces don't apply properly.
I don't hold off renting because it's a luxury I can do without, I rent because it's an inelastic need for shelter, and I don't have anywhere near enough capital to pursue ownership. The issue is that landlords are not just an enterprising part of that dynamic, they knowingly and maliciously gouge prices far in excess of any actual tangible value of their shitbox studio, because they know that if it's difficult to move and everybody else is doing it, they can bleed their working single-mother tenant dry. At the end of that transaction, the mother has invested in the owner's 4th mortgage and gets evicted when she falls a week behind, with less wealth than she had to start with. That's why there was this article about capping RAISES to rent in an LA county.
Here in Australia (we're not all american), it's becoming a really significant problem - housing has been nearly entirely commodified since the millennium, while social housing and support services have effectively crumbled. My rent in Sydney is now 80% of my income alone - and that's for a below average rent and an above average income - I've been fortunate, and I'm still at the point of having to sell assets to keep dry in the rain. The days of a single income blue collar family owning a home outright in less than a decade are long gone, and I know of 190k household couples now priced out of crappy suburbs.
It isn’t going to change until God changes it.
There is no god, so he won't be changing it - but well written legislation might. The first step in fixing a problem is acknowledging there is one, and to that effect calling a spade a spade - of course it's human nature for those who can to maximise their wealth, but I've also got the right to treat them like the parasites they are when they claim to be 'providing' anything after they hoard it all, then earn a living by exploiting multiple people's need for shelter who, without multi-property scabs like landlords, would be buying and selling less affected by speculative values. Landlords don't provide a service, they're a cartel keeping house prices high.
people don't need cars the same way they need shelter and food. I'm sick of landlords acting like they're providing some kind of social service when they financially benefit from the arrangement at the expense of the tenant, whom unlike the landlord has nothing to show for years of renting, where the landlord has now paid off their mortgage and has more capital to purchase further properties... Its an inherently self concentrating system - a renter will struggle more to buy a single property than a landlord does to add "another investment to their portfolio" through more favourable loan securitization and asset evaluation.
Landlords provide housing the same way scalpers provide tickets - considering they amass a huge majority of a working individual's income despite contributing nothing themselves and sitting sedentary for their serfs to pay their wages, I dont really give a shit what income maximisation they pursue. Anything more than a dollar is a profit, and one which they are just as likely to have "earned" from inheritance as they are from any actual hard work and skilful property quisition.
If it's so tragic and unprofitable to be a landlord, might I suggest selling up and getting the fuck out of the equation, instead of playing monopoly with the housing supply and acting like you're a saint for refusing to fix the fucking mould problem, so I can pay for your ugly family's next holiday instead of having a stable roof over my head.
The confusion about how the protocol works for new users is real, and suggestions that 'any instance is fine', although true in a technical sense - is a little misleading, firstly when you're not used to how fediverse stuff works, but also when bizarre rules about no swearing or NSFW content are applied at an admin level. I first started on .ml, but moved here after some deliberation because people can tailor their feed and content through joining communities, not having their instance hyper-politicised by ban-happy tankies. (I'm very progressive myself, before it's claimed otherwise)
I think the blurring of the lines between developers of the Lemmy open source project, and admins of the lemmy.ml instance is a self-sabotaging and tone-deaf reflection on the site, and hurts chances of wider adoption. Of course admins are entitled to their own opinions, but the entire purpose of communities like this is to try and decentralise the problematic censorship which has ruined reddit (among other issues). Having faith in the users and mods to consider content and conduct with as impartial as possible development and administration is vital to the site having any chance of being transparent and worth-contributing to.
I don't want to see the whole concept of Lemmy written off by outsiders because their first experiences of the site are of the rabid circlejerk messageboards instead of a new and exciting format for online content with greater interoperability and user control. To this effect, I'm still on the fence about defederating with those communities at a user level, but I think that I'm going to make a more concerted effort to make content and foster the communities I want here, so that .ml fades into insignificance - I don't want to feed into their narratives of persecution.
I wanna call on @dessalines, and @Nutomic, among others, with the greatest respect for their views and contributions to the project, to put the future of the platform ahead of turning it into an echo chamber - either by relinquishing themselves from one or the other (admin/dev), or by the admins collectively creating a clear policy about politicised banning to acknowledge people's concerns about this behaviour.
...