downgraded to debian stable today just to have a version of gnome which works well with #paperwm

I guess my paperwm days are on borrowed time now. And that's the problem with building something on gnome-shell, nice sand castle you have there..

I looked into SingularityCE because I know a lot of scientists who use git-annex also use it. I was surprised to see that it also just kinda matches the way I'd prefer to use containers.

Implemented a way to check a Singularity container into git-annex, and then use that container to compute the content of annexed files.

https://git-annex.branchable.com/special_remotes/compute/git-annex-compute-singularity-examples/

Really neat thing is the container can contain another git-annex-compute- program, and then using it works just like using that program running on bare metal. Except it's all sandboxed. Here I'm using my earlier compute program that converts between file formats with imagemagick:

git-annex initremote foo type=compute program=git-annex-compute-singularity passthrough=imageconvert.sif
git-annex addcomputed --to=foo foo.jpeg foo.gif

#gitAnnex

mounted the third and final combiner box behind the solar fence with the main wires landed in it, and have been finishing up the last few little things (like filling in trenching) before I tackle the next part of the installation

I am amazed at wasmedge's built-in security footgun of running AoT optimized native code by default BTW.

I'm glad I noticed that and avoided it, but it does slightly make me wonder what else I might not have noticed. What kind of sandbox doesn't sandbox by default, but only with an option (that is not even documented well)?

https://github.com/WasmEdge/WasmEdge/issues/1631

completely ridiculous to use a python interpreter for this, but it was the first useful WASM program I happened upon and I didn't want to get into making my own today

Using a WASM build of python checked into a #gitAnnex repository to compute other annexed files in the repository.

#gitAnnex compute special remote is live and coming soon to an autobuilder near you!

https://git-annex.branchable.com/special_remotes/compute/

I spent a few minutes to write a first compute program for it, which allows, for example:

git-annex addcomputed --to=imageconvert foo.jpeg foo.png

The code to that shows how simple it is to write these. Who will contribute the second one? https://git-annex.branchable.com/special_remotes/compute/git-annex-compute-imageconvert

1.15 cents per mile

Coming out of winter, my car has been able to charge up 10% from #offgrid solar nearly every day this month. And I found a free level 2 charger downtown. So I spent only $4.64 on charging last month.

Updated my home automation today to notice when the car reaches the desired charge level, and dump the solar power to other loads. Which will be a hot water heater eventually.

Alternatively, it might be that they're quoting it as a means to establish a definition. The ToU does use the term one other time.

Executable Form is a term used in the MPL, which #firefox is licensed under.

“Executable Code" is a *quoted* term used in the new firefox Terms of Use.

What are they quoting from if not the license of firefox? And if they're quoting the license of firefox, then don't they intend the ToU to apply to all Executable Forms of firefox?

Which certainly, as far as the use in the MPL goes, means not only Mozilla's firefox binary, but Debian's. And also librewolf's.

I'd love it if a lawyer could weigh in. In the meantime, I will probably be leaving librewolf behind, argh.

"what's your main web browser?" is gonna be quite an interesting interview question for technical jobs now... if they say #firefox, make note that they are unlikely to negotiate on any terms of their contract

I suspect this was a calculated maneuver, the good old ask for a mile and then take an inch.

well Mozilla has blinked

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/

"You give Mozilla the rights necessary to operate Firefox. This includes processing your data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice. It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content."

Still seems probably problematic, and to be clear, once you're dead to me, you're dead to me.

#mozilla #firefox

People are saying don't worry, #firefox doesn't contain code that will upload all your content to their servers to monetize it.

Well, it doesn't need to. Mozilla is claiming a license to things you post in public or private anywhere, so they just need enough tracking information from their adtech partners to know which posts were made by firefox users. Then they can obtain those posts from their scraping and/or data collection partners (eg facebook) and feed those posts into advertising partner's LLM and use it to generate compelling ads for you that they display in the browser.

As their terms of use puts it, they can "use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content".

I had to mess with some about:config to get disk caching to work, and to get zoom settings to be remembered. Of course these have privacy implications.

switched to #librewolf

I've done some testing with my clock set to April to see how #firefox is going to behave to new users after early March when their blog says it will make acknowledging their new, thieving TOU part of the "standard product experience".

I think it will be as simple as https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/ getting a link to the TOU. That page is currently opened in a tab when starting firefox for the 1st time. It does not currently link to the TOU.

For existing users, I think a new firefox release later will make it pop up the TOU page.

I think this will mean that the TOU will apply equally to *all* builds of firefox, including eg from Debian.

https://joeyh.name/blog/entry/WASM_Wayland_Web_WWW/

giant meteor, why have you forsaken us?

irefox

Need a good laugh? #Mozilla's privacy faq now has:

"Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of “sale of data“ is extremely broad in some places, we’ve had to step back from making the definitive statements you know and love."

The latest pack of lies from Mozilla

https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/discussions/information-about-the-new-terms-of-use-and-updated-privacy/m-p/87922/highlight/true#M33705