Yes, but as pointed out elsewhere,

• it works out about 2% of your donation, if that
• the devs would be entitled to spend their salary on personal projects anyhow, it’s an effective salary not ngo funds
• .ml serves as a useful test server and public beta for the rest of Lemmy
• it’s effectively funding every instance, by providing the software - by that metric, the opposite .world gets the larger share
• because of the small scales, ordinarily there’s not a lot of sense to separate .ml funding because it’s so small. It’s not like the devs are being devious

To me, that stacks up fairly.

I have a comment, to make this guy feel validated for his nonsense! But I downvoted him to keep it fair.

What is your worry about non authentic clients?

…comrade.

Lol. I should start using that in arguments!

*Richard Scary vehicle

I think it might be the developers of that AI, letting their system make bug reports to train it, see what works and what doesn’t (as is the way with training AI), and not caring about the people hurt in the process.

Speedrunning the divorce here.

What’s the mysterious purple line? Red Hat?

Because you asked.

I still couldn’t see it, till I realised it’s underneath, not above, the climber!

I dunno, that background tho. Becomes something out of scifi.

The push to Microsoft accounts? More people, I expect, than I’d care to admit.

Is this serious? Grandsons’ photographs are not the only thing non-tech-savvy people keep on their laptops. Microsoft’s policies are not targeting this grandma specifically.

Can you imagine a distro made in Nepal, using as its logo a symbol of health, commonly seen patterned into gates and doors, displayed in windows, drawn on streets…

As Dessalines replied, your assertion of losing donations is wrong.

But yes indeed, their views, those of .ml, and how both handle them, are driving some donors away. You’re asking them to lay down their views, hide or change their opinions, separate from the vocal community on their server (noting that .world is just as vocal, self-righteous and self-assured), in order to develop the software that you use freely (well, that you might then donate to).

Honestly I feel that makes sense and nonsense at the same time. I can see it making sense in some circumstances; but personally I don’t think so in these. Maybe the rhetoric I see on .ml just doesn’t impact me the same as you?

But as an overarching argument that for the sake of Lemmy they should change… That just seems too much to ask, over the internet. Maybe to ask politely and accept a no. Maybe in person, one might argue and counsel strongly. But people are entitled to their opinions and the internet isn’t actually such a good place to change them.

So if the devs keep devving Lemmy, let them. They’re providing a good thing for us, and I hope more people donate.

As to the technical aspects, it just feels like an emotional outburst. FOSS projects’ maintenance is always hard, and there are always difficulties. We do our best. They are trying to. And if a community came along that loves Lemmy and wants to develop it, they could either contribute or fork. Perhaps their fork would last longer? Perhaps not. But for now this Lemmy is here, and is Free, so we are glad to use it.

That’s fair.

(Though, small point, I think you can get the encryption keys to save even without a Microsoft account? Digging in regedit or something?)

Hah is there a rash of nursing home break ins that I’m unaware of?

I mean, not Windows user lives in a nursing home. I wish! But some lose laptops on the train, and some even throw their computers away!

Sure, most of the risk is remote through emails etc. Maybe you’re right. Maybe the balance is better the other way round: let all Windows Home users’ computers stay unencryptedv at rest, and keep encryption for Pro users. I grew up with a high focus on security; maybe I’m paranoid.

But phones are all encrypted these days. Obviously they’re more mobile and at more risk, but that suggests to me that laptops are subject to similar, if smaller, risks.

So, your grandma doesn’t need encryption. She might not need a seatbelt either. But it’s not only state secrets that are worth protecting. Does she have internet banking, with cookies stored in her browser? But many people do, and it’s either encryption for everyone, or for (almost) no one.

That still happens without bitlocker. Computers are dropped. Facebook passwords are forgotten.

I acknowledge automatic encryption is going to make some more cases of lost data, but, with respect, I think the benefit of making fewer cases of stolen data is worth it. I agree with the other commenter that users should be made aware of it more clearly.

Also, as much as I hate the push to Microsoft accounts, I have to admit it helps mitigate this problem: if all ordinary users have an account looking after their master keys, then they can turn to that when they forget their login password etc. but the opportunistic thief on the train can’t (as easily). Not every grandma has a Millennial relative at hand to boot Linux to rescue files off her HDD. And for those who don’t like to trust their master keys to Microsoft/Apple/Google? There’s Linux. And external backups. And saving your password somewhere safe.