mox

I suggest trying out a few distros using live bootable images, and picking one you find comfortable for regular user stuff. There is no "best" for gaming; all the major desktop distros can do it just fine.

Signal is fundamentally centralised. It's not going to become a distributed system like the fediverse, because the protocol's design doesn't work that way. (Also, its maintainers haven't shown any interest in adopting that approach.)

If e2ee email is really what you want, you can already have it with PGP. Various email clients exist that make using PGP possible for a mortal. Good luck getting many of your contacts to use it.

If you also want modern encryption guarantees, like forward secrecy, then consider Matrix instead of email. It already does e2ee and is already decentralised.

Some Steam users have reported success by switching to a different Proton version in the compatibility settings, and then returning to the previous version after the Blizzard games are updated. The specific versions that worked vary from person to person.

Alternatively, see the additional workaround (forcing an older Agent version) that I added to my main post.

Wow. I feel like i’m really experiencing California Traffic. It’s just as bad as the real thing.

I hope California drivers aren't as bad as the NPC drivers in this game. Any minor obstacle has a 50% chance of sending them into panic, ramming other vehicles and wedging their own into positions from which they cannot easily escape, when they could have just steered around it. It gets so laughably bad that I have sat and watched them try for 10-15 minutes at a time, wondering if they'll ever manage to drive away.

"Locked" implies no easy way of reopening.

Most counterproductive bug tracker feature ever.

To paint a more complete picture, PrivacyGuides.org comes from the subreddit of the same name. When I was last there (about a year ago) some of the people behind that subreddit had a habit of pushing misguided views as if they were facts, and did so with an air of authority that came from their control of the subreddit and the site.

My point is not to support either group, but just a warning: They are not "the privacy community". Please take their advice with a grain of salt. Sometimes it's good, and sometimes it is not so good.

I am not suggesting specific changes to your canary document. I am (a) explaining someone else's question that you said you didn't understand, and (b) pointing out that you might find better response if you clearly and briefly explained at the top of your post why you are posting it here.

To underscore (b): This community is not typically used as a vault for warrant canaries. An argument could be made that they don't belong here. I don't feel strongly about it so long as they don't become a common source of noise, but if you can't find a better place for them, I think the least you could do is say in one or two sentences why you're posting one. Without requiring eighteen thousand subscribers (and uncounted additional readers) to sift through off-site links, or make sense of a single field in a wall of monspaced copypasta that has no obvious meaning to the majority of readers.

!business@lemmy.world

I think you've misunderstood my comment.

Warrant canaries are most noteworthy when they’re not published.

Something cannot be a warrant canary at all unless it is published. Did you mean to say it is most noteworthy when it has been published at least once, and then stopped being published? That would be an example of what I meant by a "change" in my comment.

Back to the original point: You said you don't understand monk's first question, so I tried to explain it to you: It was asking whether some change has taken place; some cause for alarm. A change in the document, or its removal, or a failure to update it.

The only way to know that it’s not published is to – publish it. Widely. And routinely.

Indeed. As I said in the last paragraph of my earlier comment.

Edit: In the future, if you're going to post canaries to general forums like this one, you might want to include a short explanation for community members who aren't familiar with warrant canaries, or who wonder why you're posting one here of all places. You didn't provide any context. I understand the value of posting it, but to most people, your post can easily be seen as irrelevant noise polluting their news feeds.

I'm not GP, but regarding 1:

Warrant canaries are only noteworthy when they are updated. GP is asking if this one was updated, as in whether some attestation was removed, implying that a warrant affecting that attestation has been served since the last one.

If no such change has taken place, then it's still useful to have a copy of the canary publicly archived (e.g. here) for comparison to future versions, but there's no reason for the people in this community to spend their time reading it.

Does it have the same skill-leveling mechanic as the first one, where (when holding a weapon) the player has about as much control of their body as a drunk standing on one stilt, and sometimes has to fight with actions failing to work at all, until they slog through hours of mind-numbing training sessions?

I wanted to like KC:D. There were parts of it that I found really appealing, but I found that mechanic bloody intolerable, so I ended up deleting it and never looking back.

Edit to elaborate:

I like games where the challenge comes from learning how to work with available tools and moves, developing my skill with them, and figuring out how to use them most effectively. Making progress that way is satisfying.

Interfering with my ability to control my character is the polar opposite of that. It has nothing to do with developing my skill, but instead just arbitrarily denies me agency. The first game does this heavily until various grind chores are endured for some period of time. No thanks. I think it's a poor substitute for refined or nuanced combat mechanics, and I don't find it fun.

Props to the folks who managed to have a good time with it, though. I liked other parts of the game.