You can use a custom domain with most providers, so when they go dark you can at least migrate to another one.

Two things about fronting with your own domain:

1. You have to own that domain forever, until or at least until you're 100% confident that an email intended for you will never be sent to that domain ever again. Even then, there are security risks with giving up the domain.

2. You give up some privacy. You can use mailbox aliases but it doesn't really matter if all the mailboxes are tied to a domain registered to your name and address.

1. A little money solves this. You can register for 10 years at a time. Any decent registrar will blow up your email near your domain’s renewal date regardless of renewal status.

2. Whois privacy solves this. Free from any decent registrar.

Whois privacy is basically standard these days, no?

Doesn't completely solve the problem. You now have to pay per (unaffiliated) alias since each requires an independent domain. You also become extremely vulnerable to data breaches because rather than learning that foo@provider is john.doe@provider with IP xxx you instead learn that foo@domain is John Doe, phone number, street address, credit card, etc.

This issue goes far beyond email alone. The ICANN domain system effectively rents a string out to you on a temporarily basis and mandates that an Impressum be attached to it. It's a deeply flawed scheme when viewed from the context of both historical hacker culture as well as the fundamental values of a free and open society.

Yes but all of your aliases would be under the same domain so one could surmise that the same person uses the domain.

You can usually setup several domains. Some domains are very cheap to register, so you can register some inconspicuous, universal, email provider-sounding domain and add aliases at will.

For (1) you can prepay i think up to 10 years? And every year you just prepay 1 year again and you will have 10 years to remember that you forgot to pay a domain registration bill.

That is moving the point of failure to the domain registrar. Which is probably less likely, but you are always relying on someone.

I think that the point here is that your domain registrar will pick up the phone if there is a problem, where Google clearly will not.

> all I want to do is fuzzy match window titles to named audio streams in pipewire,

> basic desktop functionality

I feel your pain, but find your idea of "basic" functionality amusing.

That said, `pw-dump` / `pactl` will give you client names, which often match the window titles.

I know how to get the audio stream names, the problem is the window titles. With X it's easy, just call xdotool. I'm sure it's probably easy enough on Windows and MacOS too. Wayland is the weird one for making focused window titles privileged information.

Anyway, I do think I've created what should be considered basic desktop functionality here, a simple hotkey that mutes or otherwise changes the volume only of the focused window. Every desktop should have it.

This is just one of the tools I've made for myself with X which I do not want to do without and this makes Wayland a non-option for me. If I can't use X and can't replicate things like this with Wayland, then maybe I should switch to MacOS at that point because the dream of controlling my own computer seems like it's dying anyway.

Wayland is approximately correct in this case and Windows and Mac are behind the security curve for bincompat reasons; window titles certainly leak PII. There should be a way to do it, but it is sensitive information.

Sure, but again there's no interest in actually making a standard way to do it. I can understand it being something that arbitrary applications probably shouldn't be able to access, but that somehow turns into no way to do it, or complete fragmentation where every DE does it with arbitrary differences (or, more realistically, some DEs support it and others don't).

Okay; is there a way to do it? Can I, the user, decide that I do actually want a program to see titles? Or is it still impossible because 17 years isn't enough to implement utterly trivial APIs that people want?

Is there any documented attack on macOS or Windows that utilized window title information?

Never in history. If you have software running on your system attacking you then you have so many more issues than the adversary knowing your window titles.

My Samsung QN90B does that just fine, it's only a few years old. IIRC there's a setting somewhere in the menu to not boot to the home screen. It also doesn't nag me about anything, although I only enable wifi when I want to update.

Just checked now: the setting is General & Privacy -> Start Screen Options -> Start with Smart Hub Home.

I guess they use this blogging platform: https://bearblog.dev/

Makes sense. Hadn't heard of that platform before but looks really nice.

HDR audio already exists in the form of 24-bit and 32-bit floating point audio (vs. the previous 16-bit CD standard). Volumes are still mapped to the same levels because anything else doesn't make sense, just as SDR content can be mapped to HDR levels to achieve the same levels of brightness (but not the same dynamic range, as with audio).

Why do you think so?

LOVEINT is indeed a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT

I know it's a thing.

That was just my reaction reading the OP.

First paragraph: reasonable, if ignoring that access it not likely to be unrestricted willy-nilly.

Second paragraph: not as reasonable given that Amazon likely comply without issue with us intelligence, and sell the data to third parties, which the police could just buy (similar has been done) to avoid consent or legal obstacles.

Third paragraph: out of nowhere, focus on police. No mention of intelligence agency staff or say Amazon staff doing the same thing.

I just had a wee chuckle to myself was all.

Out of nowhere? The entire comment is talking about law enforcement (police) and law enforcement agencies (police departments) purchasing access to commercially owned surveillance databases. No warrant is required to use them, and in some cases that access is indeed "unrestricted willy-nilly."

Most people consider "intelligency agency" as part of the umbrella term "cops"

I think the logic totally follows, if your ex is a cop and you’re thinking of getting a Ring camera.

Works perfectly fine here on Firefox, no Premium.

Last time i tried it loaded the main UI but the video never showed up.

They meant merging the other way, i.e. merging the new changes from main into the stacked feature branches.

This is functionally the same as rebasing, except that the new changes show up at the tip of the commit chain rather than the base. And because it doesn't rewrite history you don't need to force-push.

Oh you silly goose.

Same, now and then some indie films release on sites like Vimeo where you can buy a DRM-free download, but it's very rare unfortunately.