Yes, so annoying especially when using source control which is case sensitive.

Rename Hello hello2

Commit

Rename hello2 hello

Commit

Because the Firefox looking glass fiasco wasn’t close to the same level and they immediately responded to criticism on the issue.

Meanwhile there is a pattern of behaviour like this from Brave.

Why isn’t the lib politician tagged as lib? It’s so weird

It does often feel like as soon as a significant hurdle is overcome, the industry just makes another one.

Hopefully SteamOS/Steam on Linux gets enough traction to force publishers to reconsider.

It would be six days at max, assuming they managed to steal the certificate immediately after it was issued, otherwise it’s gonna be even less.

Having the certificate doesn’t automatically mean you can change the site, if you have control of the site hosting you likely wouldn’t need to steal the cert anyway.

Stealing the certificate would allow you to run a man in the middle type attack but that’s inevitably going to be very limited in scope. The shorter time limit on the cert reduces that scope even further, which is great.

Since most Let’s Encrypt certs will have an automated renewal process this doesn’t even really change the overhead of setup so I think this move makes a lot of sense.

There are other things certificates can be used for as well of course but I’m just going off your example.

btw

There’s really a lot of good value devices out there once you get past the barely functional underpowered cheapo range.

Also though… you spent $250 on a phone just while waiting for your main phone to be repaired?

Biden was just scrolling through Lemmy and your comment was the final push

What should it do? It should ask you to confirm the login with a configured 2FA

Conjecture: if you assume people also live on the hill, it would be easier to carry pails back down than to carry them up from the bottom of the hill.

The enhanced permission api was a huge step forward but plenty of apps still just demand permissions up front and lock you out until you grant them

" If Disney sues, we’ll claim fair use…

Ho hi! "

Yet somehow the Steamboat Willie version seems more likely to give you said exam whether warranted or not

I Object to your terrible pun

No

You say it’s not immeasurable but then all of the things you go on to describe are within the known universe, we can’t possibly know or measure what’s outside of it, because it is not known by definition.

I’m not asking for negative proofs in fact I haven’t asked for proof of anything, I’m not sure where you got that from. I’ve simply stated that we can’t draw statistics about things for which we have no evidence - which you now seem to be agreeing with.

I said you were making a different argument because you originally talked about existing religions which isn’t what my comment or the original comment was about, I stand by that - nothing of what you had said was relevant to my response.

You can’t possibly know that it’s over 99% unlikely that the universe isn’t a simulation or that it wasn’t created by some entity since we don’t yet have evidence pertaining to any hypothesis for how it was created. The statistic was pulled out of the air and has no scientific basis.

Do I think the universe is a giant Boltzmann brain or was created by an omniscient God? No, I don’t, but it’s still pointless to pretend it’s something we can have any certainty about.

Not to be rude but this conversation isn’t going anywhere, whether you don’t understand or just don’t agree, whatever I guess…

I understand your point and I feel like maybe I’m sounding a little argumentative. Sorry let me try to be more clear.

I understand your argument is that genetic evidence disproves existing religious beliefs that people have but that’s a different argument to the point I was making.

Even if all global religions are incorrect, that doesn’t mean that a god or gods couldn’t hypothetically exist and my point is that there is no demonstrative proof of that either way.

If you check the original comment again, the question was about whether “a god(s) exist” and up until they mentioned the 99% that I was disputing, religion didn’t even come into it.

You could disprove every creationist claim, every anti-evolution argument, and you’d be right, but you can’t settle the question of “whether a supernatural being exists” because there simply isn’t a way to do that within the natural realm that we know of.

It isn’t just about God either. The simulation and Boltzmann brain hypotheses are similarly immeasurable

We’re not talking about creationism or any particular brand of theism

I’m not saying I agree with op but their comment is very clear already

It sounds like you’re referring specifically to Christian theology but the comment was just about whether a god or gods exist in general

Agree with most of what you said except the “over 99% likely to be false”.

Like you mentioned it’s not possible to prove either way so it isn’t meaningful to describe it as likely or unlikely. We have no way of knowing (at least currently) so the likelihood is simply undefined