Is it possible to get the authentication done without running their proprietary JavaScript login page?

I think this normalises running untrustworthy, abusive proprietary software, because they can at least be somewhat contained. The only reason I have apps like Facebook on my android phone is that I have sufficient trust in GrapheneOSs permissions. Then, apps like syncthing become crippled as filesystem virtualisation and restrictions prevent access and modification of files regardless of my consent.

Not disagreeing with the need for isolation though, I just think it should be designed carefully in a zero-sacrifice way (of use control/pragmatic software freedom)

I used to have a flexible silicon keyboard I could roll up and carry but some of the keys died

Nothing. Look at the deathscape polluted smoggy skies in India as people walk around without masks coughing.

To me, I find it a bit frustrating that Arch linux routinely has "manual intervention required" problems every single year where the intervention is just a single command that pacman could have just ran themselves if they so desired. Sometimes, they get a new developer and you have to manually install their keys first otherwise packages fail authentication. What can you do in the face of that except conclude they don't want things to "just work" and create a derivative in the hopes of making things just work.

It's the same with Dying Light. They have a neglected Linux version and I downloaded 16GiB before i realised to switch to the Windows version and start again.

Emacs already does that with TRAMP via SSH -- You just open a file like /ssh:user@server:/etc/hosts the main downside is if your connection is laggy Emacs will lock up momentarily. There is an ongoing effort to improve the multithreaded-ness and async-ness of Emacs to make it nicer

Wine is the chemo to the cancer that is windows :) it's not a step forward that solves a fundamental problem, rather, a workaround for a problem we created

For use with contemporary programs, that's how I think of it. But for "living" software archival purposes, I think it's a direct and concrete contribution to solving a hard problem. (As is DOSBox)

Laws are enforced by violence. If you disobey, and refuse to pay fines eventually someone will break your door down and drag you out in handcuffs

This implies you can call any law you don't like "violent". That's ridiculous.

No, it's not. One important feature of the modern state is that it makes a claim to a monopoly on violence and institutionally back up its enforcement of its laws with this threat of violence.

Come on, words have meaning. You can’t possibly claim that you honestly, truly believe that any law you don’t like is violent because in the end the state holds a monopoly on violence. That’s distorting the meaning of the word “violent” so far it becomes meaningless, and I shiver at the thought of a society where everybody who does something that waaaay down the line could somehow result in physical violence can be deemed a “terrorist”. It’s an absurd argument to make, and I’m not entirely sure why y’all are so enthusiastically for it. Don’t you see that this doesn’t only apply to laws you don’t like? Other people can call laws you do like “state terrorism” just as easily once you go down this path.

This reflex to argue against bad ideas using bad faith attempts to totally distort reality (in this case, calling excessive state surveillance “terrorism”) has got to stop. Do you really believe that by so transparently trying to gaslight people, your case gets stronger?

Stop making up bullshit terms and argue these laws on their own merits, or lack thereof. There’s plenty wrong with Chat Control without this kind of nonsense. It’s a terrible proposal. It’s not terrorism.

There are no such laws that I 'do like'.

If you want to make the claim that there are laws that aren't backed up by state violence, in this case in Germany or elsewhere in the EU, name them and show that it is the case.

I make no such case, you’re right. All laws are backed up by state violence. But that doesn’t mean you can call every law “violent”, or random government actions “terrorism”.

It’s like calling a father who tells his kid to help with the dishes “violent” because waay down the line in the most pathological broken situation imaginable the authority a parent wields over their child is backed up by violence and the ability to withhold basic necessities. It’s ridiculous, he didn’t beat his kid up, he said “come help do the dishes”.

You’re doing that, but with the state. It removes all nuance. Don’t do that, it hurts your argument.

I mean seriously your point boils down to “Chat Control is a law, and laws are backed by violence, and therefore it’s terrorism”. That means “don’t park on the sidewalk” is also terrorism! Why am I even arguing this? Gaah I so hope you’re just trolling me.

In practicing no because in the end it generally takes a human intelligence to fully understand the requirements of a particular program, sanity check everything, get the right dependency versions and fix build errors. For code library repositories like rust, importing is fairy automated since everything is neat, tidy, and regular. But end user applications are more often than not a pain in the ass