@peregus yes, well the javascript on the site is minified, but I found this place even in the minified code. At this level it would be easier to take the source code and compile your own, host your own instance, then you know exactly what code is running there. And their minified code could be directly compared with your minified code… the beauty of open-source software.
@peregus No that would be created by javascript in the sender’s browser.
@peregus It’s explained in other threads here. The key is in the url but behind # and that part is invisible to the server. protocol://host:port/path?query#fragment, server will only see …?query, so both participants can decrypt, but server can’t => E2EE
@peregus Apparently some of your assumptions must be incorrect
@jwmgregory I think you misunderstand some of the technical terms, it would be quite clear how it works and why it’s ok, so let’s just keep an open mind. Nobody will be justifying their existence in front of a random internet user. So feel free to be sus, but keep an open mind about terms like E2EE, there is much to learn.
Wiki End-to-end encryption:
> The messages are encrypted by the sender but the third party does not have a means to decrypt them, and stores them encrypted. The recipients retrieve the encrypted data and decrypt it themselves. Because no third parties can decipher the data being communicated or stored, for example, companies that provide end-to-end encryption are unable to hand over texts of their customers’ messages to the authorities.
You don’t have to trust the server.
@birdcat they do this to all new accounts now, especially the mostly inactive ones. I think one way to get around the phone requirement is to use a proton email and setup 2FA immediately after creating the account. Then again, proton is flagging new accounts with signup confirmation emails too, so… yeah… leave github asap
@muntedcrocodile “Fair use” are exceptions from copyright licenses. I won’t pretend I know how this all works in detail, I just know this is the loophole they are using.
@muntedcrocodile @JRepin they say it’s fair use to take any copyrighted content for training and data-mining. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.add6124
@Dymonika do --list-subs first, different videos offer different subs with different names
@ReakDuck I’m sure nvidia would like that, this “open source” label is good for marketing. They just want to avoid being actually open. Have the cake and eat it, like many businesses do.
@peregus why do you think so? My view is backed by the two official definitions from OSI and FSF, plus the wording of specific licenses. Your definition is backed by… linguistics? While ignoring the second (open cage) meaning of “open”? Quite strange narrow definition, don’t you think? And at odds with everyone who has been doing open-source for decades.
@peregus yes, wrong. Being “open” doesn’t mean just “readable”. Imagine an open bird cage, not just an open book. It needs to be open to fly free.
@ReversalHatchery @velox_vulnus
It violates “freedom 0” of the Free Software Definition too, so no difference there. This limitation on use makes is non-open-source AND non-free-software. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#fs-definition
@Tick_Dracy not open-source
@longpanda @horse_battery_staple
“stores various types of data efficiently, ensuring smooth performance and user experience” sounds exactly like “storing these tracking cookies for your enhanced experience on our site”
@trevor People in lemmy open-source community not seeing the relevancy of the open-source guarantee of F-Droid… SMH
@trevor What are you talking about? If they can’t build it themselves without proprietary stuff, then it doesn’t get published. That’s not a mere “guideline”.
@peregus You’re welcome, stay curious!