In b4 msft creates a level between kernel and user level for this stuff to sit at. It will have read-only access to all of kernel memory, and will otherwise function the same, but when it crashes it won’t take the OS down, just certain programs that rely on it.

What will they call it? “Observer” level? “Big Brother” level? “Overseer” level? Probably just something to do with “Verifying Trust/Integrity”. Google will also want to quietly stick something for “Web Integrity” there.

Man, they have got to get their windows up to code.

I don’t think you know what clickbait is. Clickbait means burying the, usually nonexistent, lead in order to bait views.

Ex. “Here’s how drug dealers make millions” and the content is just a long drawn out version of “they buy them online for cheap and then sell them to people” without any actual info on how that happens.

It’s not clickbait when you conduct a journalistic experiment and publish the literal result as the headline, and the content is an actual documentation of the process you went through in detail (or as much as is safe to publish). That’s just called journalism.

As someone who found out it’s origin by casually using it in reference to my asian buddy’s PC, I’m here to let you know it’s not.

If you keep picking a single replacement for the big corporation that conveniently carries everything, you’re just following Southpark’s wal-mart pattern. Take two extra seconds and see if you can buy the product directly from the manufacturer’s website, some other niche/specialty retail site, or from a brick & mortar store down the street.

I think their point was that it’s just never gonna run on a phone that came out in 2009.

Yes, I highly recommend not relying on alpha software ever as your daily driver. I never give my photo viewing software write permissions on my images, so there’s never any risk of losing data. And yeah, I’m not directing anyone outside my household to it, so I currently don’t need to worry about servicing a bunch of users.

The app/webapp mismatch issue has been more annoying that I think it needs to be. I understand the need to make security updates, but breaking compatibility this often is unusual.

But again, my point is, the money you give them is a donation. If you don’t want to donate, then don’t. There should not be any incentive to get you to donate, besides seeing the project continue.

Another arm in the arms race. The next gen of face generation will have this mastered.

I don’t follow the argument you’re trying to make. Immich is fast and simple which fits my requirements where others don’t. If you know of a better alternative, I’m all ears.

Things we didn’t think we’d have to tell people in the future.

Should I not be able to use the software if I’m donating?

You should be able to use it fully regardless of whether you’re donating.

I’m not going to pay for the mere possibility of it being useful at some undetermined point in the future.

That’s fine, by definition, a donation means you’re not paying for anything.

Immich has demonstrated it has no intention of ever becoming a useful project

I take it you haven’t been in the self-hosted photo space long. Even despite their alpha status and frequent breaking of backwards compatibility, it’s still the best experience I’ve had (comparing to Plex, Nextcloud, and Photoprism). But if you can find something better, I’m all ears.

What I don’t get is what would compel me to get a license.

Ideally nothing. Maybe a sticker or a theme, but nothing important to the function of the tool. If the personal gratification that comes with offering financial support to a FOSS project (along with the resulting product itself) isn’t enough, then this “license” (or whatever they end up calling it) isn’t for you…ideally.

If they removed it from the preface and pasted it at the beginning of every paragraph throughout the entire document, a certain type of person would still be focused on the one place they removed it from. Those are not serious people and should not be taken seriously.

I’m fine with stressful, high risk gameplay, it’s when the game asks me to spend a bunch of time doing something I don’t find fun that it loses me.

Subnautica in particular did this to me. All my friends who like Outer Wilds told me to play Subnautica. I loved the exploration and story, but I didn’t care at all about building a fancy base that I would never see again after finishing the game. There was a particular point where I was bottlenecked on finding a single resource type that was located in one single place in a giant ocean, which turned out to be a place I felt I was being told not to go yet (trying to avoid spoilers). I thought i was being dense, just not learning what the game was trying to teach me, so I ended up having to look it up, only to realize the game did an absolutely piss poor job of directing me toward the resource. My entire experience was soured by that.

It was after that that I decided single player survival crafters are not my thing. I like them as a multiplayer experience, because you can amortize busy work across multiple people, and socialize as you do it, but by myself I’d rather do anything else. I get it if someone finds it relaxing to do that kind of thing, but it’s not for me.

I’ll find a way.

Do I teleport in during the day above ground? Then I’m definitely going to fall to my death.

“Would you consider the middle to be closer to one side, or the other?”

Man, I really wanted to like this game, I love the setting, art, music, and overall aesthetics, but I’m having trouble finding the fun.

When I first heard about it, I was hoping it was basically a linear road down the coast, with a story to experience along the way (kinda like the boat/car sections of HL2). But then it turned out to be a repetitive grind. There are some mechanics I think are novel and add a lot of fun (ex. the Quirks system), but 90% of what I was doing in the game felt unfun and pointless so I could eventually return to the garage and do it all again.

I for one immediately accept this conclusion at face value.

Phew, from the title it wasn’t clear what “unlock” meant. I thought they were trying to force carriers to backdoor everyone’s phones and make the conents of any phone available upon request by law enforcement in a timely manner.