Keyoxide: aspe:keyoxide.org:KI5WYVI3WGWSIGMOKOOOGF4JAE (think PGP key but modern and easier to use)
Now I see shit again too. The unfortunate author may be torn on what to do.
Edit: https://github.com/AasishPokhrel/shit/issues/21This issue mentions the name was changed.
Post should be marked nsfw
Yeah.The maintenance of these conatellations is pricy, so perhaps if such an international program does prove itself trustworthy you'd see other national alternatives get retired.
I mean it's not like the US would do it anyway as things stand, more likely for such a program to get started independently and to end up outcompeting starlink down the line.
You want a truly multinational organization responsible for it, nothing that can be controlled by a single nation, even one as (ex)influential as the us.Something based on the UN perhaps.
Combine that with making internet access a human right, to stop denying connectivity outright.
Ideally then you could't enforce meaningful censorship, but more realistically you would route regions to their respective governments servers so they could censor as before on their territory.That would not guarantee free access to the internet to everyone, but should be an acceptable compromise to basically all nations.
After that, other doubting nations could still pull their own constellation, nothing is stopping that.
I would love if the internet program was uncensored, but that probably needs personal circumvention same as now, if such a program wants any degree of success.
Starlink should not just be nationalized but internationalized.It is internet for everyone on earth, not everyone in the USA.
Every larger nation deploying their own constellation would be a pointless waste of resources, and every smaller nation having to find reliable partner-nations to tap into for that internet access would inevitably lead to people ending up without access due to political games.
Low orbit satellite constellations are the perfect candidate for sharing, they would literally sit unused over most of their orbits otherwise.
Android has swap, in my case 4GiB. It might also be compressed but parameters are probably incompressible anyway.
Given the runtime on ios, it seems unlikely swapping would be involved. Might be a failed hardware check of some sort, or the OS refusing to alot more ram to the authors specific specific app. Similar to running in the background, there seems to be a lot of chaos about ram allocation permissions on android.
Right now, I am working on an App and the Samsung Ultra S21 that I am using (even having 16GB of ram available..) does not allow me to use more than 500MB for this App even with android:largeHeap="true" in the Manifest.
Wanted to reorganize my /mnt once and did an rm -r ... without unmounting the network share of production.We have backups now.
Access is also a full "cms" for constructing program interfaces, ui.I have seen fully fledged programs written in it, and it wasn't pretty.
Dynamics sounds like it is "excel/sql with data analysis strapped on", where access was "excel/sql with frontpage strapped on"
Interesting. How does it compare to ms Access (in the 90s I guess)?
Was about to say this.
I saw a small-time project using hashed phone numbers and emails a while ago, where assume stupidity instead of malice was a viable explanation.
In this case however, Plex is large enough and has to care about securiry enough that they eitherdid this on purpose to make it sound better, as a marketing move,did not show this to their security experts,or chose to ignore concerns by those experts and likely others (turning it into the first option basically)
There is no option where someone did not either knowingly do or provoke this.
dd is just cp but more confusing here.The only thing dd can do that cp can't is stop ahead of time, which only really matters for infinite files like
/dev/randomcp /proc/sys/kernel/random/uuid /dev/sdaboot_idseems to be static, probably set at boot.So don't use it for a random uuid.It's not failing in the technical sense, in the same way tech-support-scams aren't a failure of online-banking.
You can consider the unfixable nature of such scams an inherent flaw of the system, I suppose it is. An inevitable tradeoff for the automated nature such a system has, where a central authority would have the ability to roll things back.
On the other hand, plenty of online financial scams are not able to be rolled back, often enough banks simply pay you out of an insurance pool. The same could be implemented for blockchains I suppose. Or on top as a regular insurance specialized for "blockchain trading" or whatever. You could also enforce transaction locks, similar to a lot of bank transactions, though that would slow purchases in the same way.
About banks not running off with stuff, I mean rarely they are but usually not yes. There is a reason the core audience of blockchain technologies are paranoid people.
The legitimate usecases for fungible blockchain (crypto currencies) is countries (and corporations) regulting and limiting anonymity and even ability of transactions. That has applications from drug purchases (meth) to drug purchases (hormone therapy under anti-lgbt regimes).
The usecase of blockchain contracts for example is for simple digital trade, currently I can only think of crypto currency exchange, since this fundamentally only makes sense for goods that are themselves on a blockchain.
The legitimate usecase of non-fungible blockchain (nft) is
You can't be 100% sure about organizations following these practices, to the degree that blockchains allow. Organizations aren't fully transparent, and people are fallible.I still prefer https over all the secrecy we managed to get in letters before the digital era, even if our audit systems to ensure secrecy of communications then were impressive.
Even with a perfect audit trails and merge requirements, convincing a small group of people part of the same organization is easier than convincing a larger cryptographically-herded pool of who-knows who.
You can argue about how likely that is to ever be relevant for practical applications, but it is a system that is perfect in ways its "predecessors" aren't.
For classical databases there is always someone with root access, who could modify whatever they want.In practice, for important stuff, there is a good chance enough people were observing to make a case based on witnesses, but it isn't exactly ideal.You don't often get banks running with your money or some storage facility selling your stuff illegally, but it could happen. And that is enough for some (paranoid) people. Maybe some day there might even be applications that would not otherwise be feasible due to fear of scams.There is a usecase for crypto currencies, so why not the highly related NFTs where the only difference is that the stuff you own is a unique thing (like a title) instead of a bunch of non-unique things (like currency).
Yeah most people would think 4 is more than 3! while 3! is actually 50% more than 4.
it wouldn't though, it would be like 7.5 parts milk to 3 parts flour to almost a part oil to half a part sugar.And that still being quite imprecise, using 22g or 26g sugar makes a change in taste I wouldn't want to happen uncontrolled at random. I'm also closer to 41g oil these days, wouldn't want to use 50 to make it fit some very coarse division.Scoops of stuff also seems very imprecise. Are they at least levelled?
I also use "a pinch of salt", which doesn't have to be very precise, but if someone were to ask I could tell them "roughly 0.2g", from having just measured it. I still remembr how much I hated descriptions like "a pinch" as a cooking novice, and now I can simply measure my pinch on a scale and others can confirm their pinch on their scale until it about matches 0.2g too. How would that work in imperial?
It's like getting only 22.3 instead of 23 chromosomes. What a dick move.