

if you a communist, and you take a pro-russian stance, you’re a fascist, not a communist
Six sided devops engineer and baseball fan
I am also @[email protected], but this is my primary and more active account. The slrpnk.net account is for ecology and lemmy.world stuff
https://keyoxide.org/BAF9ACFBBA5B9A51A680D77CEF152DAE039C5CF5


if you a communist, and you take a pro-russian stance, you’re a fascist, not a communist


translation: never coming out
In-built password managers for browsers are straightforward to crack. Like… Terrifyingly easy. It’s much better to use something like Bitwarden, Vaultwarden if you don’t trust Bitwarden, 1Password if you really want the reassurance of paying someone for trust, or KeePass if you don’t trust anyone at all (I, personally, fit into this category).
Messengers are not protocols. They use protocols. Most XMPP clients use the same encryption scheme Signal does only without being dependent on a single specific server, allowing users to spread out. I recommend reading about the differences between targeting developing a platform and developing protocols. Once you do, you’ll see XMPP+Encryption in a better light than anything like Signal. The main problem in the current moment with XMPP+Encryption us that it isn’t where the people are. Us tech weirdos can start the push into that space a little bit, but we need “Normies” to adopt to, and for that we need to be clear on what were talking about. Comparing XMPP to signal doesn’t make sense. Comparing Cheogram to Signal does. And in the latter, cheogram frankly blows Signal out of the water for real privacy and security considerations


Legitimately! Early Metallica was all about liberatory politics. Then it turned into center-right american politics. The kinds of dudes who really have hard-ons for how great the status quo is.


The problem is other distros exist that do everything Ubuntu does right without all the things Ubuntu does wrong
in 2026 you really have to ask an employer what they mean by object oriented programming in the interview. do they mean a methodology of organizing pure functional code into actors and message busses? do they mean imperitive code that’s interacted with through generic interfaces as with python? or do they mean javascipt style OOP where you define classes to organize your imperitive code within a functional language without any concern for the generic interfaces this could hypothetically enable?