I don’t think English is interested in adding additional grammar.

Only facts can be right or wrong.

Opinions (such as that the Earth is flat) can obviously be wrong. Facts cannot. Look up the definition of fact.

Anyway, I know there are applications that don’t have binaries, but most do. I am not a lawyer, but if I’m not mistaken, source code is under U.S. law protected by the first amendment while binaries are not.

You admit applications are not necessarily binary, the law does not mention binary or source code or anything like that where it defines applications. You are just grasping at straws to justify an indefensible position, that whoever possesses a binary is it’s owner.

Which is obviously untrue. Ownership of software means ownership of it’s copyright. It’s been made very clear in the last decades that you (legally) don’t even own software that you pay for. You own a license to use the software.

You cannot argue, in good faith at least, that this is what is intended by the law. First it would be spelled out and secondly it would mean that for all applications, not just FOSS ones, the people paying the fines would be the users, $2500 for each app they install that’s in violation. Which is obviously not what’s intended.

I am not saying that the law is FOSS friendly. I am saying that the law does not cover all FOSS software despite it being the clear intend of the lawmakers to cover all software. In such cases it will have to be decided by courts (I believe courts still have this function for state laws), whether it also applies to FOSS software.

Unfortunately it does since it does not discriminate. If anybody that can be effectively prosecuted (i.e. US/California resident) takes your advice and takes it to court, he is getting fucked.

What I am saying is that the lawmakers clearly do not understand the topic they are trying to regulate.

No shit. That does not mean FOSS software is not affected. You also do not understand the topic or choose to not understand it because it’s spells trouble for FOSS. But pretending everything is ok does not make it so. FOSS projects either need to implement it or make sure they isolate themselves from US/California jurisdiction.

That’s your opinion. It’s wrong. There even are applications that do not have binaries at all. There is no reason to believe the legislators would not want them covered by this law, it certainly does not say so.

It also does not make a difference, owner of the copyright of a binary is the owner of the copyright of the source code. Compiling does not remove the copyright of the source code author as the binary is clearly derived from the source code. The person who compiles the source code does not even get any copyright since it’s not a creative process.

You are not helping FOSS by trying to portray the law as FOSS friendly when it isn’t. Unfortunately the law rarely is FOSS friendly if not due to hostility due to indifference/ignorance on the part of the legislators.

Since it’s a civil case I doubt they could enforce payment on people outside the US. I am not sure if they can collect from people in the rest of the US but they probably can.

I suppose not complying with a court order could result in criminal charges. Brazil will not extradite you but you will not be able to visit the US.

There is no mention of binaries in either f or c. Possession of binaries does not constitute ownership of an application, ownership of software means holding the copyrights.

But even if we abuse this definition we simply make whoever installs the application liable. In a lot of cases that would be a parent. It could also be the user since the law doesn’t state they can’t be the same person.

(b) If an application last updated with updates on or after January 1, 2026, was downloaded to a device before January 1, 2027, and the developer has not requested a signal with respect to the user of the device on which the application was downloaded, the developer shall request a signal from a covered application store with respect to that user before July 1, 2027.

(f) “Developer” means a person that owns, maintains, or controls an application.

1798.503. (a) A person that violates this title shall be subject to an injunction and liable for a civil penalty of not more than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per affected child for each negligent violation

So a developer of a FOSS application that gets installed on a device on California via a 3rd party app store (maybe F-droid) must have implemented a query to the OS for this data. Even if the app does not actually provide any inappropriate content or actually any content.

Nor does it matter if he is involved in the distribution of the app to California, a FOSS app redistributed via a 3rd party (F-droid maybe) would make the developer subject to this.

I am not familiar with Hyprland. It does seem you can (possibly have to) put the layouts in hyprland.conf, as well as set keyboard shortcuts instead of using hyprctl.

input {

kb_layout=us,fa

kb_options=grp:win_space_toggle

}

If you set them with localectl you should check for the proper code with localectl list-keymaps. There is no ir code in my system, only fa.

What exactly do you mean by not switching properly if you install with fa?

I mean, they are stupid cocaine-brained man-children, but it would be history’s greatest fuckup to *choose * space over Earth. No matter how much we manage to fuck it up, it will always be more suitable for life than space or mars.

The purpose for buying a media company like this, it for making futuristic copaganda games. To change perspectives through exposure to new pro-fascist narratives. This is a huge moment. And no one is really talking about it.

Or exploiting a vast rootkit installation base.

No, legislate them away.

No matter what?

I disagree with your reasoning, I 'm confident his base would react more negatively to him being peed on by two consenting adults (which might not actually be the case; trafficking of adults is a thing) than him raping children, so long he takes ‘masculine’ role.

Sure kid.

I am not misrepresenting his point, you are misrepresenting my point with this ‘truth is what matter’ fixation when discussing his intent. While not actually care about him being untrue.

You have attacked me, calling me a liar, a fanboy, a poser etc. You are only here to troll.

There are android phones outside Google’s garden that will remain outside it’s walls. Apple’s walled garden vs Google’s future wall garden is a false dilemma.

Yes. People have been correcting him on the Mac OS thing. Which you said was irrelevant several times.

Yes, you on the other hand consider it relevant, yet you don’t have an issue with him making that point but with me.

I, remember, said it is not. Because again, this is not about what you like, it’s about what is true.

I answered on whether he was trying to justify Microsoft’s actions or not. In that regard it does not matter whether it true or not, him bringing it up is an attempt to normalize Microsoft’s actions. What would matter is him knowingly lying about it instead of being wrong but I am not going to accuse him of that.

On that note, the breakdown of what is sent, how and when is absolutely dependent on your account login. If it was not then there would be nothing to complain about. That doesn’t mean they don’t send anything without an account (unless you’re not online at all, obviously), but the payload of information will be different and in some cases some calls may be dependent on you having an ID in the first place. Plus there’s the question of whether unsigned users leave any connection to the account that activated the Windows install. Which I don’t know about and you clearly don’t care about.

I 'd rather disable telemetry totally. Windows does have installation wide keys, even if Microsoft right now does use it to connect accounts to local accounts they can at will.

I do agree with you that “I installed Linux for my grandma” is not “helping”, either, but I didn’t say I do that, either.

It helped my family just as installing windows for my friends helps my friends if not my ego.

Yes to all that!

Everybody is biased but usually the deeper the connection one has to a side the more biased he is. I 've been just a user of Linux since 2010, he worked for Microsoft for longer.

If you really are interested in accurate information, you are not very good at it. People are disputing his statements on MacOS in this very thread, on the OP in fact.

Telemetry does not depend on using a remote account, if you don’t disable the relevant settings and services windows will still send data to Microsoft. Obviously a Microsoft account provides more identifying information to Microsoft.

I wonder why most people, according to you at least, warned that Microsoft would disable previous methods but Plummer doesn’t.

As for all that ‘agenda, hardcore, uncompromising’ bullshit, I 've only installed Linux on my own and my immediate family’s computers, cause they are the computers I will have to fix (or fix) if they are not working. I have installed Windows many more times both on my own machines as well on friends etc because that’s what they wanted. There’s no point in pushing stuff on people.

You on the other hand seem to think I should be helping with something, presumably something you are pushing for?

Finally I did not post any misinformation.

I think I misread a statement about existing users not having their settings changed possibly on an update?

For individuals using JetBrains IDEs with commercial licenses, free trials, free community licenses, or EAP builds who do not explicitly consent to the new data collection model – nothing changes.

Only if Google makes such sweeping changes to make forward-porting the feature impossible.