One of those is dead.

One is blocked by OP’s instance.

One is hosted on an instance that more than a few people avoid.

One is nearly empty, but maybe worth joining and starting some discussion? !patientgamers@lemmy.world

You are correct. Traditional X middle-button behavior is to insert the primary selection, from any application. It is distinct from the cilpboard(s), has no “copy” step, and doesn’t behave the same as “paste” (it can’t paste over another primary selection).

Many people don’t notice the difference, though, especially if they’re used to an environment that lacks that functionality, like Windows. Some might even get confused or frustrated when the middle click doesn’t work quite as they expect (which, of course, is because it’s actually doing something different).

https://www.jwz.org/doc/x-cut-and-paste.html

It’s also possible that OP remapped their middle button to paste from the clipboard, although their phrasing makes it seem unlikely.

The security provided by a browser is constantly changing, as the vulnerabilities, attacks, and countermeasures are constantly changing. It’s a cat-and-mouse game that never ends.

The privacy provided by a browser would be difficult to measure, since it depends a lot on browsing habits, extensions, code changes between versions, etc.

There’s no good way to calculate a metric for either type of protection, and even if there was, the metrics would be obsolete very quickly. For these reasons, I wouldn’t have tried what you attempted here.

However, there is a very simple way to compare the major browsers on privacy and reach a pretty accurate conclusion: Compare the developers’ incentives.

Your account info says you joined Lemmy a couple of years ago. Could that have something to do with it? Could be that there are simply fewer of us here than wherever you were before.

Also, if Reddit is one of your haunts, keep in mind that a lot of communities there partially dispersed a little over a year ago, and not everyone has reappeared in the same place (or at all).

The argument against it is founded on copyright.

We fund copyright in order to enrich our culture, by incentivizing creative works.

Blocking creative works preservation strips away the cultural enrichment.

What’s left? People being compelled through taxes to fund profit police for copyright holders who aren’t holding up their end of the bargain.

Edit: Note also that publishers and their lobby groups are not artists. They are parasites. They are paid more than fairly for their role in getting creative works out there in the first place. I can’t think of any reason why they should have continued control after they’ve stopped publishing them.

Yes, it’s safe, because no, they don’t relay it. The brilliant thing about it is that it’s all done locally, on your machine.

Technologies accelerate all sorts of agendas, but to blame this long-standing problem specifically on tech companies is to misunderstand the problem. Corporations shouldn’t have been allowed much influence on governance in the first place, no matter what their tools or line of business might be.

Instead of pointing fingers, how about we stop allowing corporate political donations and lobbyists in democracies, and put some real enforcement behind anti-corruption and bribery laws?

Unfortunately, I don’t think D is good enough to prove your point. From your follow-up comment:

A language that for all intents and purposes is irrelevant despite being exactly what everyone wanted,

As someone who uses D, I can attest that it is not what everyone wanted; at least not yet. Despite all the great things in the language, the ergonomics around actually using it are mediocre at best: Several of its appealing features quickly turn it into a noisy language, error messages are often so obtuse as to be useless (especially with templates and contracts in play), and Phobos (the standard library) is practically made of paper cuts. Also, the only notable async support is a fragile mess, and garbage collection is too deeply embedded into both the stdlib and the ecosystem.

(To be fair, D could be vastly improved with better defaults and standard library. That might happen in time, as Walter and the other maintainers have shown interest, but it’s just wishful thinking for now.)

Also, D is an entirely different language from C++, and as such, would require code rewrites in order to bring safety to existing projects. It’s not really comparable to a C++ extension.

Is this going to be re-posted every month?

That was a different community.

Also: https://xkcd.com/1053/

Given how long and widely C++ has been a dominant language, I don’t think anyone can reasonably expect to get rid of all the unsafe code, regardless of approach. There is a lot of it.

However, changing the proposition from “get good at Rust and rewrite these projects from scratch” to “adopt some incremental changes using the existing tooling and skills you already have” would lower the barrier to entry considerably. I think this more practical approach would be likely to reach far more projects.

Cryptocurrencies are not reliably fungible, nor stable, nor widely accepted. They have their uses, but they are not suitable replacements for PayPal and not what OP asked for.

There is no privacy-focused PayPal alternative in the US, in part because US money transfer laws and policies (e.g. Know Your Customer) directly oppose privacy.

However, there are a couple of projects in development that might eventually lead to something less bad for privacy than PayPal is:

• GNU Taler, if they ever get any exchanges, and they either figure out how to mitigate the high fees for wire transfers or use some other transfer method when people make small payments. (Their plan to use batch wire transfers won’t help until the exchanges get a lot of adoption and frequent use. Of course, high fees discourage adoption and use, so this might not ever happen.)
• FedNow, if banks ever use it to build person-to-person payment services instead of just using it for themselves and their business customers.

The rest of the sentence you truncated points out forwarding services. Yes, others exist beyond the four I mentioned, of course.

Edit to clarify: Your “it doesn’t” argument is that you can use forwarding from other domains that you own. Indeed you can, but that’s not a counterargument, because those are forwarding services. They do exactly what I described: the same thing as the example forwarding services that I pointed out in my original comment. You still have to maintain the them, as well as maintain the extra domains.

I don’t know if Element Web/Desktop was affected by the vulnerabilities in the title, but another one (also announced today) is fixed in Element Web/Desktop v1.11.81.

https://github.com/element-hq/element-web/security/advisories/GHSA-3jm3-x98c-r34x

The correct fix is to get the site maintainers to stop rejecting email addresses based on the characters they contain. They shouldn’t be doing that. Sadly, some developers believe it’s an appropriate way to deter bots, and it can be difficult to educate them.

If they won’t fix it, the workarounds are to either not use those sites, or to give them a different address. Unfortunately, the latter means having to maintain multiple email accounts, or forwarding services like Addy.io, SimpleLogin, Firefox Relay, or DuckDuckGo Email.

https://www.cgmagonline.com/news/steam-purchase-license-california-law/

https://digitaldemocracy.calmatters.org/bills/ca_202320240ab2426

I no longer consider any email app to be okay for privacy if I can’t build it from source code. There are just too many opportunities and incentives for someone to exploit it. That could be the developer, or the maintainer of some obscure code library, or a company that buys one of them out, or an attacker who found a vulnerability. We no longer live in a world where it’s reasonable to think we’ll get privacy from communications software that we can’t inspect.

Thankfully, we also no longer live in a world without options. There are more than a few email apps with nothing to hide. :)

The Last of Us Part I.

I generally dislike games on rails, but I loved this one.

People in privacy circles do talk about phone numbers, but it’s usually about them being collected in the first place. Most of us realize that corporate promises to delete them later are easily reneged and impossible to verify, and therefore next to worthless. We need laws forbidding data collection. We don’t have them yet.

By the way, that title is useless to people who are browsing Lemmy to see which posts might interest them.

I don’t know why VPN providers promote themselves as like they are going to make your connection more private, everything is already encrypted (except DNS).

It’s true that most popular web sites have moved to HTTPS, but even if all of them had, not all network traffic is web traffic. Also, even if someone uses the network only for web browsing, DNS is not the only privacy-relevant data that gets exchanged outside the HTTPS connection.

You are just shifting the trust from your ISP to the people that run the VPN.

Some people have reason to distrust their ISP more than their VPN provider, so this is a valid use case.

VPN isn’t really comparable to HTTPS. The former protects all traffic, and with a relatively small attack surface, but only up to the VPN edge. The latter protects all the way to the network peer (the web server), but only web traffic, and with a massive attack surface: scores of certificate authorities in countries all over the world, any of which could be compromised to nullify the protection. They address different problems.