.mp4 with H264: the most universal, and can be compressed to smaller sizes than you might think. Compatibility and compression will still vary depending if you use AAC or opus audio

.webm with VP9 and opus audio: better compression, not as universal. More open-standards based, maybe best balance of compression and compatibility

.mp4 or webm with AV1 and opus audio: probably best compression, also probably less compatibility than VP9, maybe depends what devices they use - good on new computers / phones / Android based TVs, more iffy on a wider or older range of devives. MP4 maybe friendlier than webm on newish Apple devices

Not that I know of.

An easier build would be using a pre-approved list of sites known to not be ad-driven. Like, right now if you limited your search to piefed or nostr then that might avoid ads, but instead of doing it one at a time, it would be good to have a way to search a list of known sources like that all at once. This would be limited to the manually added search sources, but it’s really hard to program a system to automatically find all the ad-free sources out there

If you’re talking about downloading the same file twice, you can also pause the torrent, put the finished file in the folder it would be downloading to (make sure it fully matches, same name) then right click the torrent and select “force recheck” to make your client see it has it already

Definitely useful for helping prevent content from being taken down. Torrents remain searchable through DHT but without seeds they’re just clogging search results

Still not getting your point. Is there a reason I should read about Redishell?

the only loss here is my time as a moderator :P

I value mine more than yours, sorry.

Do keep in mind that all this has a lot of “editor wars” vibes. But the conflict goes beyond Debian (e.g. including Rust in Linux kernel), and actual harmful discussions between Rust and C/C++ people is REAL, damaging our communities, and very much driven by generations/ network-effect. And this is just sad. It’s not a technical issue, and overcoming it seems nearly impossible at the moment.

Is this the reason you give me a “warning” later in your reply? I’m not getting the exact point clearly. This topic is “harmful,” but I don’t think you warned everyone else discussing it? So what is the actual warning? Are you telling me not to reply in threads on this topic in the future?

backdoors to me are a smaller concern in the software industry nowadays in comparison to the Redishell provided that you were unable to fully understand

Backdoors are a top priority concern in consumer electronics. I hope nobody lets themselves be mislead on that fact here.

I have no idea what “Redishell” is. I don’t think there was any point in this thread where I said anything about it, so what are you talking about with me being “unable to fully understand” it? Couldn’t you try telling me what it is and checking how much I understand before saying that? Am I totally forgetting something?

Whatever it is, it sounds like you’re implying it’s a security vulnerability that cannot be a backdoor, which I definitely don’t understand when I have no idea what it is.

deleted by creator

Then I get half of a not-top-2 distro. And even the “giants” (Ubuntu / Fedora) are too small to develop full stability for their half-distros. Bad situation

systemd

Looks like it’s already time to move away from MX Linux. That sucks. Whole Linux ecosystem back to getting worse instead of better?

That all lines up with what I’ve heard. Thanks for the comprehensive reply 🤙

deleted by creator

Nice, thank you

Why?

So this link shows a comment for you, not just a blank space? https://piefed.social/post/1458050/comment/8784509#replies

Here’s a screenshot of what I’m seeing

Nope, not seeing it there

Weak gaslighting attempt but if you could show me where to find it documented I would appreciate that.

If anyone is confused, feel free to ask me for proof I’m telling the truth. If I posted it here, I’m pretty sure I’d be at risk of getting banned for evading the post removal (because the proof would also lead you back to the reply chain that was removed)

Edit - maybe this counts as proof without showing any removed content:

https://piefed.social/post/1458050/comment/8784509#replies

If you click the link, it’s blank, yet it has a “parent comment” link that leads to where I was replying

Edit 2 - tried to post an archive link but archive.org didn’t seem to work the way I thought?

Is the link I posted above showing what I described for other users?

Strange how your bad faith reply is still here, and with many upvotes, while my reply calling you out appears to be gone.

This is an example of how discussions like this are more appropriate for nostr, where there are no bans / post removals.

Essentially, yeah.

Noticed an overall “vibe” where Rust critics repeatedly have points that sound like they make sense, and I can’t really think of examples of them saying confusing nonsense, or refusing to elaborate on a point when challenged to. Whereas, other way around for Rust defenders.

Best way I know to determine what’s “sus” is to look at what’s defended by people who are willing to elaborate on the points you ask them to elaborate on. It’s almost a perfect gauge. But maybe not quite perfect, and you could totally call it “vibes.” I remain not totally certain about Rust.

What do you mean?

You self admittidly don’t know code, so like, why are you trying to argue about code?

Because the level of knowledge that would stop you from rephrasing my words into “don’t know code” is much higher than the level of knowledge I’m using in the argument.

That’s like a DJ and a Barber arguing over which carbueretor jet is correct in a classic Mercedes. The answer is muddier and than either of them know enough to understand, because they’re not mechanics or engineers.

How is that like an unpaid cybersecurity expert arguing about cybersecurity then?

Are you a programmer?

Already answered this and you acknowledged that in the beginning. It’s becoming clearer and clearer you’re replying in purely bad faith.

Cybersecurity researcher?

Kinda, but not really.

Bot designed to sow discontent with pretty arguement?

Obviously not, and now it seems like you’re trying to bait me into the kind of response that could get me banned here. This discussion would be more appropriate for nostr, where no one can be banned.

Like, what’s the point of all this?

The main point of your gish gallop is to waste my time and energy and confuse other people.

The main point on my side of the discussion has been to raise awareness of how concerned the general public should be (and sadly isn’t) about the general state of cybersecurity right now, especially in vital areas like how the Linux ecosystem and coding languages themselves are developing.

Neither of you know what you’re talking about

Incorrect. I have talked about, for example, a user’s statements in a discussion I linked to. I know this. You can’t really provide an example of anything I’ve mentioned here that I don’t know about.

You could use “don’t know what you’re talking about” as a euphemism for how the person I was replying to was spewing bullshit, but I’d just call them a liar. Seems more straightforward. Either way, that’s not me.

don’t even know what you’re talking about but I can clearly read the vibes based technobabble between you

I think in this context, you should be trying to ignore the vibes and understand what’s being said.

so like, why?

Awareness should be raised for this stuff, because people are sadly not as concerned as they should be about the state of cybersecurity right now. It’s particularly an issue in Linux / FOSS circles where there seems to be more of a false sense of security these days.