Do you mean Vaultwarden? AFAICS they do not “settle” on it, but they do argue that it is much lighter in almost every respect. And since it is Bitwarden compatible the comparison is valid.

I don’t know which one I mean, because OP never says which SaaS password manager they switch to, they simply say they switch to a proprietary SaaS password manager:

For group A I’m going with a SaaS password manager that offers proper vault sharing, integrates with the tools clients actually use (SSO, browser extensions on corporate machines, audit logs), and takes the hosting burden off my plate. The platform is proprietary, which I would normally not be thrilled about, but given that the scope of this group is client work only, I’m accepting the trade-off.

My review of your post: you need to stop using so much emphasis on everything. Not every instance of the word Bitwarden needs to be italicized. Also five different ways of storing passwords sounds insane, and harping on for a dozen paragraphs about Bitwarden’s security incidents only to settle on another SaaS password manager sure is a choice.

There’s a lot of blatant LLM bots on Reddit these days so I think it’s a good thing they’re doing this. It’s also only a matter of time before those same bots start landing on Lemmy, even more so than they already have.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

The PRC does employ censorship, but this is directed against that which undermines socialist construction, including liberal and pro-capitalist narratives.

So in other words not everybody in China can freely express their opinion on political and social topics. Glad we agree on this objective fact. Now what, except for people not answering polls honestly and/or being brainwashed, explains 86% of Chinese respondents responding that China has freedom of speech on political and social topics?

Not all states commit genocide forced re-education or run a draconian nation-wide internet censorship program.

In fact the latter point is a pretty good example of how these polls you’re using as a source are not reliable. The substack article you link says that

When given the statement “Everyone in my country can freely express their opinion on political and social topics”, only 18% of people in China disagreed (compared to 27% in the US).

China doing heavy censorship of public discourse is objective reality – a few years ago they heavily suppressed the social media trend of “laying flat” for example, because they were afraid of the public questioning the rat race.

It’s a well known phenomenon that people raised under authoritarian systems with heavy thoughts control will frequently answer the “socially acceptable” thing even on anonymous polls – this is what the state has trained them from birth to do. Another effect that explains the incongruity in e.g. a larger proportion of Chinese respondents thinking their system is democratic than French respondents is that words like democracy do not mean the same thing in China as they do in France.

dissidents in China are fighting against socialism.

Or just authoritarianism and all that entails.

The I in LLM stands for “image”.

Yes, KDE is a desktop environment. It’s one of the “Windows-like” ones and very customizable, and arguably the most technically advanced one at the moment.

Wayland is the display server, as it is called. It’s basically the back-end component that facilitates actually displaying anything on the screen. It replaced another component called X11, which was released in 1987 and had become a completely unmaintainable mess of technological debt.

Wayland took a very long time to develop and there are still some growing pains, which is why you will occasionally still see people arguing that X11 is better – these days you should probably just ignore anyone who says that though, as the overwhelming majority of users will be much better served by Wayland than by X11.

As for what distros support it, basically every up-to-date distro (latest major version release during or after 2024) using one of the following desktop environments will default to Wayland: KDE, Gnome, COSMIC, Sway, Hyprland. Other DEs don’t yet have stable Wayland support. Notably Linux Mint, a very common recommendation, is not on this list because the Cinnamon DE it uses does not yet support Wayland.

A couple of example distros mentioned in the thread and article would be Bazzite, Fedora and CachyOS. These distros all update swiftly, which is desirable because the Linux desktop is advancing very quickly at the moment. Slower-moving distros like Debian or Ubuntu LTS tend to miss out on a lot of nice new features.

I just tested it on one of my laptops running Linux Mint Debian edition 7, (Debian 13 Trixie under the hood) with the Cinnamon desktop environment running X11 and it worked perfectly also. 4K TV set as the primary monitor scaled at 150%, the laptop’s screen as the secondary, 1080p at 100% scaling, applied the settings and it was completely fine.

X11 fractional scaling is not great. It may have looked fine if you only had a cursory glance, but it has many issues. “True” fractional scaling in X11 doesn’t work on a per-monitor basis IIRC, instead any per-monitor fractional scaling will be a relatively simple resize operation that results in lots of blurriness.

As far as I understand it, if the proposal was voted on and lost, there’d be a cooldown period for a certain time before they’re allowed to resubmit the same thing. The people pushing this are using a loophole of sorts where they retract the bill when it looks like it’s not going to pass and then resubmit it later with slight alterations. It’s an attrition tactic; they only have to win once whereas we have to repeal it every time.

The teeth regrowth thing was only two years ago.

I mean, the number of logical qubits has gone from basically zero not too long ago to what it is now. The whole error correction thing has really only taken off in the past ~5 years. That Microsoft computer you mentioned that got 4 logical qubits out of 30 physical qubits represents a 3-fold increase over the apparently previous best of 12 logical qubits to 288 physical ones (published earlier the same year), which undoubtedly was a big improvement over whatever they had before.

And then the question is FOR WHAT? Dead people cant make use of quantum computers and dead people is what we will be if we dont figure out solutions to some much more imminent, catastrophic problems in the next 10 years.

Strange thing to say. There’s enough people on the planet to work on more than one problem at a time. Useful quantum computing will probably help solve many problems in the future too.

Even if it’s 8 physical qubits to 1 logical qubit, 6100 qubits would get you 762 logical cubits.

All I’m saying is that the technology seems to be on a trajectory of the number of qubits improving by an order of magnitude every few years, and as such it’s plausible that in another 5-10 years it could have the necessary thousands of logical qubits to start doing useful computations. Mere 5 years ago the most physical qubits in a quantum computer was still measured in the tens rather than the hundreds, and 10 years ago I’m pretty sure they hadn’t even broken ten.

We can only hope that Bitcoin gets pwned by quantum computers. It would be absolutely glorious.

There was a paper recently about a stable 6100-qubit system, so the trajectory is plausible. If 1399 qubits is needed for 2048-bit Shor’s, this would already meet that by a wide margin – though obviously this is a research system that AFAIK cannot do actual computations.

https://www.livescience.com/technology/computing/quantum-record-smashed-as-scientists-build-mammoth-6-000-qubit-system-and-it-works-at-room-temperature