Incidentally the same labels make Gmail fundamentally incompatible with the way IMAP works causing lots of weirdness whenever you use any standard email client not specifically designed for Gmail.

Or frontdoor checkbox for that matter, given that it’s the literal device owner that takes the action tripping their “security” tripwire.

Probably no, not in this specific form, that being said I don’t want to compare one tragedy to another. There are lots of disgusting parts of the human history, and that’s certainly one of them.

To my non-American ears “negro” sounds far worse actually. Probably because of how rare it is in comparison.

Frankly that’s something I do not understand. Why this single specific word? We have dozens of terrible offensive words. Why this specific one is considered so bad we cannot even talk about it directly, even when merely discussing it? I would think discussing it and not directing it at someone would be pretty reasonable. As with every single other word.

And what do the companies take away from this? “Cool, we just won’t leave you any other options.”

So basically Arch?

I guess if that’s how it works for you, sure. For me it’s upvote if funny, nothing if meh and downvote if downright malicious (bigotry, toxic behavior etc.). I don’t think I gave out more than 10 downvotes on Lemmy during this whole year. Though I can see how this post might qualify for the “bigotry or toxic” category, but I’m willing to give it a benefit of doubt.

That being said, if you have a different policy, who am I to judge.

If you feel the need to downvote everything merely not deserving an upvote, then yes, you need to chill.

Definitely not true, but still a hilarious meme. People downvoting this need to chill.

They’re free to change the licence of future versions.

Only if they are still the only contributor. Once you have more contributors, it gets far tougher to change the licence.

Because he’s good at playing outlaws, duh. /s

Subsidise how? They were using their existing plan as intended and even willing ditch the grey-area parts. If CF cannot afford to offer their plans as they are, they should change the offered plans, not hunt for easy prey.

As if! I’m sure lots of neurodivergent people would disagree with half of these points.

I wasn’t aware they added WebAuthn to the free plan recently. That’s great to hear, thanks for the correction!

I’d be perfectly okay with them just charging for Bitwarden, period. Instead they pretend it’s free but charge premium for all the most effective security features, including 2FA to their own services. Effectively it creates a group of people that use Bitwarden without access to these security features but complacent enough to not seek alternatives that would offer these features at a price acceptable for them (possibly free, like KeepassXC).

Bottom line: security shouldn’t be a premium feature. It should be either available or not at all. Never as a premium within the service.

DNS-based ad blocking is unfortunately much less effective. It’s still better than nothing though, that’s for sure.

Even if it’s supported, it doesn’t mean it needs to be installed in every system. If the user wants to use a Musl-based system, the software working only on glibc needs to be patched. At least that’s how I understood these statements.

They are the alolan forms.

Presumably so it can work with either libc implementation.