Thank God for cars. Imagine riding public transport and getting felt up/robbed/harassed. Glad we can all agree on this Lemmy 👍

Obviously this is the worst of both worlds, but it’s a weird flex to support cars.

Hunter2

Zomboid was originally inspired by CDDA. Much of the game flow and ideas are 1 to 1 copies. The biggest difference is that CDDA is a turn based game that is played on tiles (think rogue or nethack). From the inventory system to crafting to base construction to reading books, it’s all there.

Oh. Except bites aren’t instant death. There’s no zombie virus. Dead bodies rise up (including yours!). You can still get infections and die from them, but you can also just clean your wounds. 1v1-ing a zombie is suicide though unless you have a decent weapon.

Also, zombies evolve… So they scale well into the late game. Having a zombie hulk throw you through a concrete wall and breaking every bone in your body is usually lethal.

If you’re enjoying Project Zomboid, you might want to check out Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead (CDDA). It’s a fantastic open-world survival game with a similar vibe, but it offers a lot more depth and complexity in its gameplay mechanics. Best part? CDDA is free and open-source.

Yeah, I mistyped part of the sentence. Should have been “without some serious effort or illegal methods.” Serious effort is well beyond most ISP’s. They aren’t sniffing wireless AP’s then busting down doors to find out if its a 5g AP or an AP using their network. I actually know quite a bit about WiFi signals. I happen to be certified in Meraki (CMSS). If the uni said “no wireless signals” that would be a completely different story.

Robust but complex solution:

1. Set up an encrypted VPN at the router level. Any encryption will work, even weak dumb encryption is fine. Any attempts to decrypt it would be mad illegal.

2. Turn off your SSID.

It is now functionally impossible to detect anything about the traffic or the Wi-Fi router without some serious or illegal methods.

Sure, people might not care, but that doesn’t change the facts. Experts aren’t denying the legitimacy of the Panama or Paradise Papers, but they are saying that the idea of megacorporations secretly listening to your microphone and selling you products based on that is false. If they were doing that, it would be pretty easy to find out. Smartphones aren’t some mysterious black box; security engineers and hackers are constantly checking for these kinds of exploits. If corporations were actually spying on us through our phones, it would be the biggest topic at DEFCON. Believing that this could be kept secret would require assuming that all these experts are either paid off or in cahoots with the corporations, which veers into full-blown conspiracy theory territory.

The reverse is just as true:

“People are lazy and life is easier when you just blindly hate things you don’t understand.”

As a network engineer, it’s frustrating to see laymen make outlandish claims about technology with their source being “corpo bad”. I hate corporations too, but it would be an absolute bombshell if it were true. There’s just no possible way that every single hacker and security engineer are in league with the corporations.

ai new

new bad

remember old time

old time good

I’m skeptical that you’re giving the full story

No, you’re right. There’s a much bigger story here. I was just trimming out a lot of it since I don’t normally run into people who can follow along easily. Akamai, for example, uses the proprietary AKAMAICDN record to allow the functionality of a CNAME. For example: foo.com AKAMAICDN’s to foo.com.edgekey.net (edgekey.net of course being the Akamai edge server suite). So someone using Akamai can do that to allow them to use the apex (but will still very likely have a www.foo.com CNAME foo.com setup to catch people who did a www anyway) Cloudflare uses CNAME flattening to “cheat” the CNAME rules by doing the CNAME DNS lookup internally and pretending to be authoritative for the request.

You don’t typical have your webpage itself delivered by CDN, you have your static assets delivered by CDN. Why can’t you put your static assets in a subdomain that gets a CNAME?

You can most certainly put static assets in a specific subdomain (and in fact, that’s how most setups are), but the CDN itself often requires handling the entire request at the beginning. You don’t want, for example, an A record at the apex pointing directly at your origin servers (terrible idea for security & performance; kind of defeats the purpose of the CDN), instead you want the user to connect to an edge server and have that edge server immediately serve the static content while the origin is contacted by the edge server for any non-static content that the user needs. This allows the CDN to do their cloud magic while your origin servers can do as little work as possible with as few people as possible. Effectively, you can block all requests to your servers that are not from your CDN. Many CDNs these days are also a major security feature.

There are many many reasons you don’t want to (or can’t) have the apex of your domain (what you’re calling the “default domain”) the primary domain name of your site. I thought you were going to argue in favor of like “home.[domain].com” or something.

The first and foremost issue is that if you wish to use a CDN, many CDN’s require a CNAME to function properly. You can’t have a CNAME share space with any other record (RFC 1912) which completely precludes using an MX record (for email) or TXT records for DKIM, SPF, and DMARC. (You need those for a secure email service). Having the CNAME sit as a subdomain of the apex (such as www) allows you to maintain those records in your domain while also serving people using that CNAME. (Some CDN’s such as Akamai even have special proprietary records that function like a CNAME while returning A records just to make this work)

Why not? (Serious question, I’m a DNS engineer so this is super relevant to me)

Precisely. When warmongering dictators with imperialistic ambitions invade your nation, just throw their magical ring into a hot mountain.

That’s not from the supreme court ruling. That’s an opinion piece. It holds no meaning over the ruling. Political fear mongering.

But notably, it does shield them from prosecution for crimes which are tangentially related to their official duties. For example, granting a presidential pardon is an official duty. Taking a bribe in exchange for that pardon would be a crime. But now the president is allowed to openly and blatantly take that bribe, because the bribe is tangential to their official duty, and they are therefore shielded from prosecution.

Not at all. While granting a pardon is an official duty, taking a bribe in exchange for a pardon is a criminal act. The decision does not shield the President from prosecution for such criminal conduct. Criminal acts are just as prosecutable as there were prior.

Excerpt from the ruling:

“As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. The principles we set out in Clinton v. Jones confirm as much. When Paula Jones brought a civil lawsuit against then-President Bill Clinton for acts he allegedly committed prior to his Presidency, we rejected his argument that he enjoyed temporary immunity from the lawsuit while serving as President. 520 U. S., at 684. Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President’s decision making is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct. Id., at 694, and n. 19.”

Unofficial conduct includes taking bribes.

Many experts disagree with the second half of your sentence, because ordering an assassination could easily be argued to be an official duty; After all, the POTUS is the commander in chief of the military. According to this ruling, ordering it illegally would be protected, because the illegality is tied to the official duty.

“Many experts” isn’t someone I can talk with or argue against. They’re just weasel words.

Ordering an assassination is illegal. It violates the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution (as they deprive persons of “life, liberty, or property” without fair legal procedures and protections). as well as Executive Order 12333 in which assassination is explicitly deemed illegal.

Who decides what is “official,” or “unofficial?” Oh, that’s right, Federalist Society planted judges.

The distinction between official and unofficial acts is largely guided by precedents set by the Supreme Court. Cases like Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) and Clinton v. Jones (1997) provide frameworks for understanding the scope of presidential immunity and the nature of official duties. It’s not just something they drum up out of nowhere. Judicial review and precedent are used for building out what constitutes official duties.

This is exactly why i’m asking people to read the ruling that I linked for your convenience It doesn’t even talk about bribery. At all. People are just saying things without doing any effort to source/reference/research what they’re talking about.

Hey so there’s some echo-chambery stuff going on in Lemmy right now, so I want to provide some clarification:

1. The court decision did not create a new law. It provided clarity on laws already in place. Presidential immunity is not a new thing. It’s a well established power. See: Clinton v. Jones (1997), United States v. Nixon (1974), United States v. Burr (1807), Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)

2. The court decision does not expand on the law either, it clarifies that:

The President has some immunity for official acts to allow them to perform their duties without undue interference. However, this immunity does not cover:

• Unofficial acts or personal behavior.

• Criminal acts, (to include assassination).

The decision reaffirms that the President can be held accountable for actions outside the scope of their official duties. It does not grant blanket immunity for all actions or allow the President to act as a dictator.

People who are giving opinions based on what they read on Lemmy instead of going and reading the supreme court opinion that is totally online and right here for you to reference are spreading misinformation and fear.

Then Paradox was developing it. They own the studio. Who else is going to build the game? An executive?

I am sure that everyone would agree that Paradox owns/developed/published Europa Universalis 4… But that was made by “Paradox Tinto” or Stellaris was “Paradox Development Studio”… The publishing wing of Paradox doesn’t develop games. Obviously. But I don’t understand why thats in any way relevant to the discussion. Paradox (the company, not specifically the publishing wing) was 100% responsible for the development, the testing, and the publishing of Life by You. They built it, they took it down.

So… Paradox tectonic is not related to paradox…? Are you sure?