Show warnings based on script selection

[undergroundwires]

Problem description

When using privacy.sexy, users can unintentionally create a "mixed state" selection that includes reversible and non-reversible scripts (see #68). This can lead to confusion and potentially irreversible system changes that users are not fully aware of or do not desire. The problem is the lack of clear, immediate feedback warning users when they have made such selections.

Proposed solution

Introduce a warning system in the UI that alerts users when:

1. They have a mixed state of reversible and non-reversible scripts
2. They include scripts outside of the 'Standard' recommendation
3. Their selection contains irreversible scripts.

This system should:

• Display warnings in an eye-catching color (red or yellow) above the action buttons.
• Use clear and concise language to explain the potential risks.
• Provide tooltips or a help icon with detailed information about the warnings for users who need more context.

Consideration: Irreversible script warning may confuse newbie users just here to select "Standard" and move on as standard pool contains non-intrusive irreversible scripts that delete unnecessary files. This warning could be excluded from this implementation, or use less-prominent color assuring users that these are typically safe and commonly accepted practices.

Alternatives considered

• An "I understand the risks" checkbox that must be ticked before allowing users to proceed with a mixed selection.
• Automatically separating irreversible scripts from the reversible ones upon selecting "Revert all," prompting users with an option to download or apply them separately.

Additional information

Future iterations could include a sanity check feature before running scripts, allowing users to review a flattened list of selected scripts with their revert status and manually include or exclude them. This would serve as a final review dialog, ensuring users are fully aware of the changes they're about to make.

This issue is created after discussions in #68.