seeing it now on fdroid.
…just this guy, you know.
seeing it now on fdroid.
they are. props, however, for system76 branching out into their in-house hardware.
wow! this must be the most “fuck you in particular” moment ever.
my undaeratanding is that lens material is so optically tuned for weight that removal of any amount of material makes a difference to the focusing - not to mention the possible coatings on the lens. this is what I have been told, I have no other evidence.
all good.points. my only retort is that its ineffective until its not. this direcyaction has an effect on a small number of people and I think the blowback is likely minimal - net positive? the people involved may geninely not ever engage in any other way on this issue. and if the marketing people are right, engagement is vital.
good question. it seems to work on me, but I don’t think I count.
I can say that when people in my orbit start talking about the direct action they have heard about (a few do), it is a possible entry point into a personal discussion on climate change. I don’t often pursue these openings, but I have gotten into 2 or 3 good conversations - apply exponential growth and …?
“excuse me, but do you have a moment to talk about our
lord and saviourbringer of war and famine?”
so, I don’t know. but it feels like its a net positive.
respectfully disagree. its way too easy to normalize every disaster, every lie, every little “we’re all going to die anyway”.
I may be a sick minded outlier, but I am ok with this action and others. there is no damage done (soup on glass and cornflour on rock don’t count) and these people are putting their bodies and freedom on the line to keep people talking about what is likely the single biggest existential risk humanity has faced.in 50k years.
right now, any time this issue is in front of eyeballs (even if tangentially reported) its a win.
this resonates so much…
“ok, which one of you crackheads decided an unconstrained recursive C function was a good idea right her… oh.”
this thread is it in a nut shell. the x11/wayland situation can trip things when it really should be super seamless. that will be fixed soon enough.
if you are ok with an Ubuntu base (which these days is drifting further from its Debian base) then regular mint is great.
if forced…
not hating on ubuntu, its just been moving away from where I am at.
If you’re skeptical that this feat is possible with a raw 4004, you’re right: The 4004 itself is far too limited to run Linux directly. Instead, Grinberg created a solution that is equally impressive: an emulator that runs on the 4004 and emulates a MIPS R3000 processor—the architecture used in the DECstation 2100 workstation that Linux was originally ported to. This emulator, along with minimal hardware emulation, allows a stripped-down Debian Linux to boot to a command prompt.
that is 2^8 levels of insane! and of course its Debian.
edit: 4bit data 12bit addressing make it an 8bit processor ; -)
I will slowly corrode on this hill.
quassel and quasseldroid. its client-server, always on irc connectivity but does require a little setup.
you can access irc servers (if acceptable) and the quassel daemon via Tor. might just change the way you think about irc.
edit: word
politics has never been logical.
just when you are sure this article is going to fluff out on you, it doesn’t.
But how does AI tell when someone is most likely lying? They’re smiling like an American.
I was oddly surprised at how I connected with this article. a useful read in a defining epoch.
you (yes, you in particular) are the reason why STP was invented.
I would normally suggest that this is more “networking porn”, but its just way too fetishistic for regular consumption. you animal!
You have a double standard.
well, don’t we all? but I think my argument is somewhat well founded. I have a reply in-composition, but just got project smacked. will reply as soon as I am able. didnt want you to think I had abandoned a conversation.
That’s security through obscurity. It’s not that Linux has better security, only that its already tiny desktop market share around 2003 was even smaller because of different variations.
no, its absolutely not. its choosing software components based on known security vulns or limiting exposure to a suite of suspected or established attack vectors. its absolutely not security through obscurity. these are fundamental choices made every day by engineers and sysadmins everywhere as part of the normal design, implementation and maintenance process. there is nothing “obscure” about selecting for certain attributes and against others. this is how its done.
perhaps you disagree with this.
That’s again blaming the Microsoft user for not understanding computers but not blaming the Linux user for running as root.
? its not the users job to understand OS security. to expect otherwise is unrealistic. also, virtually no “average” linux user, then or now, ran/runs as root. the “root X” issue related to related to requiring XWindows to run with and maintain root privs., not the user interacting with X running as root. it was much more common in the XP era to find XP users running as administrator than a “Linux user for running as root” because of deep, baked-in design choices made by microsoft for windows XP that were, at a fundamental level, incompatable with a secure system - microsofts poor response to their own tech debt broke everything “NT” about XP… which is exactly the point I am trying to make. I am not sure your statement has any actual relation to what I said.
So you blame Microsoft for allowing users to disable security features but don’t blame Linux for allowing it also?
I am saying that I have far fewer privilege escalation issues/requirements on a typical linux distro - almost as if a reasonable security framework was in place early on and mature enough to matter to applications and users.
we can get into the various unix-ish SNAFUs like root X, but running systems with non-monolithic desktops/interfaces (I had deep core software and version choices) helped to blunt exposures in ways that were just not possible on XP.
we are talking about XP here, a chimeric release that only a DOS/Win combo beats for hackery. XP was basically the worst possible expression of the NT ethos and none of NTs underlaying security features were of practical value when faced with production demands of the OS and the inability of MS to manage a technology transition more responsibly.
now, if you ask me what I think of current windows… well, I still dont persnally use it, but for a multitude of reasons that are not “security absolutely blows”.
apologies for the wall-o-text, apparently I have freshly unearthed XP trauma to unload. :-/
so, hows your day going? got some good family / self time lined up for the weekend?
in
and with one word, the conversation becomes deeply political.
yes, but you really don’t want to nat if you dont have to - gets too messy too quickly when direct IP connectivity is right there.
@shadowintheday2@lemmy.world parent comment is correct. check routes on device C. make there is either a default route or a specific route back to A via B.