sodiboo 
@sodiboo@gaysex.cloud
:pride_heart:
I love programming, math, science, and linguistics
.NET shill turned Rust shill turned Nix shill
I'm the administrator and sole user of https://gaysex.cloud
I don't post media without alt text. I try not to boost posts with no alt text or with very unhelpful alt text.
follow requests MAY take a long time to process. this doesn't mean there's anything wrong with you, i'm just procrastinating. feel free to send a follow request.
read more at https://sodi.boo
Posts
Latest notes
No posts yet.
[CW]
Content warning
Nix slander
Show
Hide
Content warning
Nix slander
@julia@eepy.moe I don't need to. mommy is the nix store. she reproduced me she can reproduce more
@Starcross@mk.absturztau.be @snow@cofe.rocks This reply made me squeal in laughter. The delivery is perfect. Thank you Serena
dear friends
is there a way on Linux/PipeWire to do screen capture with all audio sources on my system being recorded as separate tracks? i.e. rather than monitoring my output device, i'd like OBS (or similar) to create capture devices for each of my audio sources. so, e.g. game audio in one track, browser playing music on a separate track, and voice chat in a third track. and this is crucial: i don't want to manually configure one or two tracks here, i want it to automatically capture everything separately!!!! also, is there a video container format that even supports such a file? dynamically created audio tracks midway through? surely that exists?
additionally, do you know any chat apps/modifications (especially discord extensions, but others welcome too) that make it easy to not just capture the chat app individually, but each participant individually?
---
the end goal here is to make my system audio mixing at capture time irrelevant. no matter if i can hear a particular source or particular user very well, i want it to be easy as fuck to fix that in editing to make sure that source is comprehensible after all.
this is crucial: i don't want to manually configure one or two tracks here, i want it to automatically capture everything separately!!!!
also, is there a video container format that even supports [...] dynamically created audio tracks [...]?
@halva@mk.absturztau.be uh huh . "wireless". YET I CAN SEE THE 3.5mm AUX WIRE IN YOUR MARKETING MATERIAL
@kirby@freerobuxextremist.com @woof@fedi.aria.dog @sharkey@sharkey.team yeah but like. "it doesn't allow impersonation" basically rules out XSS, no? XSS is full code execution in the client. so it would necessarily allow impersonation of everyone using the web interface. so it's not that. so what the heck else could it be that's still this severe
@sharkey@sharkey.team @woof@fedi.aria.dog what the heck else could it even be that's so serious but DOESN'T enable impersonation? based on the description ("I will update for you if you can't do it when it's fresh"), I would assume it's like, RCE or something. but that enables impersonation (and so many worse things). so I guess this vulnerability is definitely less severe than that
(mostly a rhetorical question. I'm thinking out loud here. don't give us more details until the patch is released lol)
[CW]
Content warning
my take on the California/Colorado OS-level age "verification"/attestation laws.
Show
Hide
Content warning
my take on the California/Colorado OS-level age "verification"/attestation laws.
maybe I'm totally misunderstanding it but like. as far as I can tell. the new California / Colorado "age verification" laws are reasonable and actually can protect kids.
the way I understand it, it requires the operating system to attest the age group of the user. and apps can gate certain content based on the age group.
this is good, no?. like we do not want individual apps doing age verification. they cannot fucking be trusted. and more importantly, it's horrible when we force them to do so.
and, importantly, the OS-level thing doesn't even mandate verification? it's wrong to call that "age verification". all it demands is a signal to applications of what age group the user is in, but imposes zero requirements about how to determine the value of that signal. "it is trivial to bypass with a single prompt asking are you 18 at install time" Yes! That's the point! It lets the user (or, computer administrator) decide whether to restrict the experience or not!
Maybe it's misguided and an age signal isn't enough. Maybe it'd be better to have more granular content controls for all sortsa "scary content". Like, mandating parental controls that are useful in every operating system. I don't think that sounds unreasonable! I don't think it's weird to say that parents should be able to restrict e.g. sexual content from showing up on their very young children's devices. Or, anyone who is an adult but still might not want to see graphic depictions of violence, ever! Or, a corporate device where employees shouldn't be allowed to access social media categorically (but as a higher-level signal rather than e.g. blocking individual sites on a network level). Maybe instead of saying "targeted advertisement is illegal for the child agree group", there could be an OS-level signal to disable targeted adverting, and it'd be legally binding, even for adults
That's not quite what the California/Colorado laws are proposing. Not the level of granularly I just described. But the fundamental model of consent is kinda captured in those laws. That the device owner gets to control what is appropriate to display. There's no intrusive forced verification, only a signal indicating the preference.
The focus is on forcing apps to respect the content preference, and forcing operating systems to signal a content preference. There's no forced ID verification privacy nightmare.
The granularly of the preference leaves a lot to be desired. I wish it wasn't an age signal. because that's Not the part that applications should care about. they should care about the specific things they are or aren't allowed to show or do to this user.
@snow@cofe.rocks with alt text