You can consider yourself whatever you want for however long you want.

If you feel young and people thing you are weird for saying so that is their problem. Young is a feeling not a number.

It’s definitely an option. It will do the things that you want (as long as your phone is online, but that is the same for any other solution).

sending Signal messages with it would be less secure

Yes, this is because Beeper converts the Signal protocol to the Matrix protocol and vice versa. In order to do this it needs to access the messages. So it needs to decrypt the messages, then re-encrypt them on the other side. This means that the bridge (in this case operated by Beeper) has access to your messages. This is often referred to as “end-to-bridge” encryption, as it isn’t end-to-end anymore.

This is going to be true of any bridge you use that is hosted by a third party. You are always adding one additional trusted party into your communication.

the recommended bridge instructions sends me over to Beeper, since I don’t have my own server

Yes, to practically operate a bridge you need your own Matrix server. This is because the bridge will create a new Matrix user for every remote participant (every phone number you communicate with in this case). Doing this with regular mechanisms would be difficult (as signup is likely restricted in some ways) and inefficient (as each account would need to be checked for new messages separately). Beeper runs their own homeserver so that they can operate their bridges. However Beeper’s bridges are only available to users on the same homeserver (this is not a protocol limitation, just their choice). So in order to use their bridges you need to make an account with them (which you can, it is free IIUC). Beeper also offers custom clients which have special features for interacting with their bridges (for example making it easier to start a conversation with a new phone number).

The alternative would be to run your own server and bridge (or hire someone to it on your behalf).

The most likely situation is that the torrent isn’t good. I would also force a recheck of the torrent to double-check that the files on your disk haven’t been corrupted. But if that file is still saying “0 B” remaining (don’t just look at 100% as it may be rounded) after the recheck then I would bet pretty good money on a broken torrent. If this is a public tracker it is fairly common.

However even if it is broken you may be able to play by using a different players. Different apps can skip over different forms of corruption, so you may get lucky.

This is a case of the streetlight effect. Evaluating the skills needed to do the job is very difficult in an interview setting, so most of the focus going on evaluating skills that are easy to evaluate in an interview (such as people skills).

It isn’t wrong, as all else being equal it is still better to hire the person with better skills that you can measure but obviously is not a strong evaluation of candidate quality.

Probably yes, it depends on your threat model.

If you are using E2EE on a matrix.org account then your message content, attachments (images) and most other traffic isn’t accessible to anyone but the people in the chat. However Matrix isn’t the most private option, it has a number of leaks such as reactions and chat topics (these are being worked on but aren’t close to happening).

For most people Matrix is a very private and secure option and the fact that it is federated is a huge plus. If you want something more secure you are probably looking at Signal (which you don’t want to use and isn’t federated) or Simplex Chat (which doesn’t have multi-device support).

I’m pretty sure every microwave just splits the input in to the last to digits as a number of seconds and the digits before that as minutes. Then runs for 60 * minutes + seconds. So 0:99 is equivalent to 1:39 and 1:80 is equivalent to 2:20. I mean it is a little weird that the seconds can be >59 and extra weird that you can do 6:66 but it isn’t exactly wizardry.

I don’t think this is a major “this is why people pirate”. Pirate sites also regularly get cracked (possibly more often the the average streaming service). It isn’t like bank details were leaked here so the only real difference is that in some pirate sites you don’t need a login at all.

Why WASM? It seems to me that the attack surface of WASM is negligible compared to JavaScript (and IIUC disabling JavaScript will also disable WASM).

Third-party frames is definitely a good way to reduce your attack surface though. Ad embeds are often used to distribute exploits.

Are you a lawyer?

I am not. Are you?

Including a link to a Creative Commons license in a comment footer will not do that.

It is when you give it a different name which doesn’t reflect the actual behaviour of the license.

Ok. So you should probably frame your license like that. Instead of saying “Anti Commercial-AI license” say “Pro Non-commercial-AI license”.

I should add that there is one approach that could be taken here. Take this with a huge grain of salt because I am not a lawyer.

When you are posting on Lemmy you are likely granting an implicit license to Lemmy server operators to distribute your work. Basically because you understand that posting a public comment on Lemmy will make it available on your and other Lemmy servers it is assumed that it is ok to do that.

In other words you can’t write a story, post it on Lemmy, then sue every Lemmy instance that federated the comment and made it publicly available. That would be ridiculous.

There is a possible legal argument that twists this implicit grant to include AI training. Maybe you could have a disclaimer that this wasn’t the case. I don’t know how you would need to word this and if it would actually change anything. But I would talk to a lawyer.

Because you are effectively spreading misinformation.

Your behaviour leads people to believe that in order for their comments not to be used for commercial AI training they need to have a signature. But that isn’t true, at most the signature is allowing more uses of your comment, not restricting anything.

People already struggle to understand copyright. Adding more confusion is doing everyone reading your license a disservice.

Because people don’t understand how copyright works.

In most countries any copyrightable work that you produce is automatically covered by copyright. You don’t need to do anything additional to gain that protection.

Most Lemmy instances don’t have any sort of licensing grant in their terms of service. So that means that the original author maintains all ownership of their work.

So technically what these people are doing is granting a license to their comment that allows it to be used for more than would otherwise be allowed by the default copyright protections.

What they are probably trying to accomplish is to revoke the ability for commercial enterprises to use their comments. However that is already the default state so it is pretty irrelevant. Basically any company that cares about copyright and thinks that what they are doing isn’t allowed as fair use already wouldn’t be able to use their comments without the license note. So by adding the license note all they are doing is allowing non-commercial AI to scrape it (which is probably not what was intended). Of course most AI scraping companies don’t care about copyright or think that their use is not protected under copyright. So it is again irrelevant.