sylver_dragon

Never try to catch a falling knife.

also dealing with a chronically higher baseline level of inflammation

Have you been tested for gluten intolerance and/or Celiac Disease? Chronic inflammation is one of the markers. It’s a very simple blood test, though it seems to be something doctors don’t always bother to check for. Talk to your doctor about the test.

The remote access devices can be a good thing. The issue is one of control. Given the software driven nature and complexity of devices, bugs are inevitable. Having a way for the manufacturer to distribute those updates remotely is a good thing as it lowers costs, and makes it more likely the updates get deployed. That said, the ability to enable and disable that remote access system needs to be in the hands of the customer, not the manufacturer.

As an example, many years ago I worked for a company which manufactured physical access control systems (think those stinking badges and readers at office buildings). And we had two scenarios come up which illustrate the issue quite well. In the first case, the hardware which controlled the individual doors had a bug which caused the doors to fail unlocked. And based on the age of the hardware the only way to update the firmware was to physically go to the device and replace an EEPROM. I spent a very long day wandering a customer’s site climbing a ladder over and over again. This was slow, expensive and just generally not a great experience for anyone involved. In the second case, there were database issues with a customer’s server. At that time, these systems weren’t internet connected so that route for support didn’t exist. However, we shipped each system with a modem and remote access software. So, the customer hooked up the modem, gave us a number to dial in and we fixed the problem fairly quickly. The customer then unplugged the modem and went about breaking the system again.

Having a way for the manufacturer to connect and support the system is important. They just shouldn’t have free run of the system at all times. The customer should also be told about the remote support system before buying the system and be able to turn it off. Sure, it’s possible to have reasonably secure remote logins on the internet (see: SSH or VPN), but it’s far more secure to just not have the service exposed at all. How many routers have been hacked because the manufacturers decided to create and leave in backdoors?

The main thing I have from that time is several large boxes hanging about taking up shelf space and a burning hatred of MMOs. My wife and I got into WoW during late Vanilla. We stood in line at midnight to get the collector’s edition box for WotLK and later again for Cataclysm (we weren’t that far gone when The Burning Crusade released). Shortly after Cataclysm released, there was the Midsummer Fire Festival and as we were playing through it, we hit that wall where any more quests became locked behind “Do these daily quests 10,000 times to progress” and the whole suspension of disbelief just came crashing down. I had already hated daily quests and the grindy elements of the game, but at that moment I just said, “fuck this” and walked away from the game.

I do look back fondly on some of the good times we had in the game. Certainly in Vanilla there was some amazing writing and world crafting. We met some good people and had a lot of fun over the years and I don’t regret the time or money spent. However, one thing it taught me is just how pointless MMOs are. They are specifically designed to be endless treadmills. And this can be OK, so long as the treadmill itself is well designed and fun. But, so many of the elements exist just to eat time. Instead of being fun, they suck the fun out of the game and turn it into a job.

We even tried a few other MMOs after that point (e.g. Star Wars) just because we wanted something to fill that niche in our gaming time. But invariably, there would be the grind mechanics which ruined the game for us. Or worse yet, pay to win mechanics where the game would literally dangle offers of “pay $X to shortcut this pointless grind” (ESO pops to mind for this). If the game is offering me ways to pay money to not play the game, then I’ll take the easier route and not play the game at all, thank you very much.

So ya, WoW taught me to hate MMOs and grinding in games. And that’s good, I guess.

So, if the higher level universe works by magic, then the theory is fine.

Sure, I’m making assumptions that any universe simulating our own would have finite energy and resources. Also that they would make a simulation that is at least close to their own (making theirs close to ours). Those seem like reasonable assumptions to make, otherwise we might as well just say that our universe is a pocket dimension made by magic and the whole thing becomes absurd pretty quick.

It would be interesting to see someone with the background to understand the arguments involved in the paper give it a good review.

That said, I’ve never brought the simulation hypothesis on the simple grounds of compute resources. Part of the argument tends to be the idea of an infinite recursion of simulations, making the possible number of simulations infinite. This has one minor issue, where are all those simulations running? If the top level (call it U0 for Universe 0) is running a simulation (U1) and that simulation decides to run its own simulation (U2), where is U2 running? While the naive answer is U1, this cannot actually be true. U1 doesn’t actually exist, everything it it doing is actually being run up in U0. Therefore, for U1 to think it’s running U2, U0 needs to simulate U2 and pipe the results into U1. And this logic continues for every sub-simulation run. They must all be simulated by U0. And while U0 may have vast resources dedicated to their simulation, they do not have infinite resources and would have to limit the number of sub-simulation which could be run.

Well,

If the goal is stability, I would have likely started with an immutable OS. This creates certain assurances for the base OS to be in a known good state.
With that base, I’d tend towards:
Flatpak > Container > AppImage

My reasoning for this being:

1. Installing software should not effect the base OS (nor can it with an immutable OS). Changes to the base OS and system libraries are a major source of instability and dependency hell. So, everything should be self contained.
2. Installing one software package should not effect another software package. This is basically pushing software towards being immutable as well. The install of Software Package 1, should have no way to bork Software Package 2. Hence the need for isolating those packages as flatpaks, AppImages or containers.
3. Software should be updated (even on Linux, install your fucking updates). This is why I have Flatpak at the top of the list, it has a built in mechanism for updating. Container images can be made to update reasonably automatically, but have risks. By using something like docker-compose and having services tied to the “:latest” tag, images would auto-update. However, its possible to have stacks where a breaking change is made in one service before another service is able to deal with it. So, I tend to tag things to specific versions and update those manually. Finally, while I really like AppImages, updating them is 100% manual.

This leaves the question of apt packages or doing installs via make. And the answer is: don’t do that. If there is not a flatpak, appimage, or pre-made container, make your own container. Docker files are really simple. Sure, they can get super complex and do some amazing stuff. You don’t need that for a single software package. Make simple, reasonable choices and keep all the craziness of that software package walled off from everything else.

Traditions exist to pass on learned knowledge and for social cohesion. Prior to widespread education, many local groups had to learn the same lessons and find a way to pass those on from person to person and generation to generation. Given that this also tended to coincide with societies not having the best grasp on reality (germ theory is not that old), the knowledge being passed on was often specious. But, it might also contain useful bits which worked.

For example some early societies would pack honey into a wound. Why? Fuck if they knew, but that was what the wise men said to do. It turns out that honey is a natural anti-septic and helps to prevent infection. They had no knowledge of this, but had built up a tradition around it, probably because it seemed to work. And so that got passed on.

The other aspect of traditions is social. When people do a thing together, they tend to bond and become willing to engage in more pro-social behaviors. It isn’t all that important what the activity it, so long as people do it together. The more people feel like they are part of the in-group, the more they will work to protect and sacrifice for that in-group.

Sure, a lot of traditions are complete crap. They are superstition wrapped in a “that’s the way we’ve always done it” attitude. But it’s important not to overlook their significance to a population. The Christian Church ran headlong into this time and again through European history as they sought to convert various groups. Those groups tended to hold on to old traditions and just blended them into Christianity. This resulted in a fairly fractured religious landscape, but the Church generally tolerated it, because trying to quash it led to too many problems. While stories of various Easter and Christmas traditions being Pagan in origin are likely apocryphal, there are echos of older religious beliefs hanging about.

It’s best to be careful when looking at a particular group’s traditions and calling them “backwards” or some other epitaph. Yes, they almost certainly have no basis in the scientific method. But, the value of those traditions to a people are very real. And so long as they are not harmful to others, you’re likely to do more harm trying to remove them than by simply allowing folks to just enjoy them.

It’s going to depend on what types of data you are looking to protect, how you have your wifi configured, what type of sites you are accessing and whom you are willing to trust.

To start with, if you are accessing unencypted websites (HTTP) at least part of the communications will be in the clear and open to inspection. You can mitigate this somewhat with a VPN. However, this means that you need to implicitly trust the VPN provider with a lot of data. Your communications to the VPN provider would be encrypted, though anyone observing your connection (e.g. your ISP) would be able to see that you are communicating with that VPN provider. And any communications from the VPN provider to/from the unencrypted website would also be in the clear and could be read by someone sniffing the VPN exit node’s traffic (e.g. the ISP used by the VPN exit node) Lastly, the VPN provider would have a very clear view of the traffic and be able to associate it with you.

For encrypted websites (HTTPS), the data portion of the communications will usually be well encrypted and safe from spying (more on this in a sec). However, it may be possible for someone (e.g. your ISP) to snoop on what domains you are visiting. There are two common ways to do this. The first is via DNS requests. Any time you visit a website, your browser will need to translate the domain name to an IP address. This is what DNS does and it is not encrypted by default. Also, unless you have taken steps to avoid it, it likely your ISP is providing DNS for you. This means that they can just log all your requests, giving them a good view of the domains you are visiting. You can use something like DNS Over Https (DOH), which does encrypt DNS requests and goes to specific servers; but, this usually requires extra setup and will work regardless of using your local WiFi or a 5g/4g network. The second way to track HTTPS connections is via a process called Server Name Identification (SNI). In short, when you first connect to a web server your browser needs to tell that server which domain it wants to connect to, so that the server can send back the correct TLS certificate. This is all unencrypted and anyone inbetween (e.g. your ISP) can simply read that SNI request to know what domains you are connecting to. There are mitigations for this, specifically Encrypted Server Name Identification (ESNI), but that requires the web server to implement it, and it’s not widely used. This is also where a VPN can be useful, as the SNI request is encrypted between your system and the VPN exit node. Though again, it puts a lot of trust in the VPN provider and the VPN provider’s ISP could still see the SNI request as it leaves the VPN network. Though, associating it with you specifically might be hard.

As for the encrypted data of an HTTPS connection, it is generally safe. So, someone might know you are visiting lemmy.ml, but they wouldn’t be able to see what communities you are reading or what you are posting. That is, unless either your device or the server are compromised. This is why mobile device malware is a common attack vector for the State level threat actors. If they have malware on your device, then all the encryption in the world ain’t helping you. There are also some attacks around forcing your browser to use weaker encryption or even the attacker compromising the server’s certificate. Though these are likely in the realm of targeted attacks and unlikely to be used on a mass scale.

So ya, not exactly an ELI5 answer, as there isn’t a simple answer. To try and simplify, if you are visiting encrypted websites (HTTPS) and you don’t mind your mobile carrier knowing what domains you are visiting, and your device isn’t compromised, then mobile data is fine. If you would prefer your home ISP being the one tracking you, then use your home wifi. If you don’t like either of them tracking you, then you’ll need to pick a VPN provider you feel comfortable with knowing what sites you are visiting and use their software on your device. And if your device is compromised, well you’re fucked anyway and it doesn’t matter what network you are using.

Ultimately, it’s going to be down to your risk profile. What do you have on your machine which would wouldn’t want to lose or have released publicly? For many folks, we have things like pictures and personal documents which we would be rather upset about if they ended up ransomed. And sadly, ransomware exists for Linux. Lockbit, for example is known to have a Linux variant. And this is something which does not require root access to do damage. Most of the stuff you care about as a user exists in user space and is therefore susceptible to malware running in a user context.

The upshot is that due care can prevent a lot of malware. Don’t download pirated software, don’t run random scripts/binaries you find on the internet, watch for scam sites trying to convince you to paste random bash commands into the console (Clickfix is after Linux now). But, people make mistakes and it’s entirely possible you’ll make one and get nailed. If you feel the need to pull stuff down from the internet regularly, you might want to have something running as a last line of defense.

That said, ClamAV is probably sufficient. It has a real-time scanning daemon and you can run regular, scheduled scans. For most home users, that’s enough. It won’t catch anything truly novel, but most people don’t get hit by the truly novel stuff. It’s more likely you’ll be browsing for porn/pirated movies and either get served a Clickfix/Fake AV page or you’ll get tricked into running a binary you thought was a movie. Most of these will be known attacks and should be caught by A/V. Of course, nothing is perfect. So, have good backups as well.

Oh look, it’s an air mouse. But, you can’t change the battery, the licensing is all kinds of “fuck you”, and with all those gestures, I’m expecting a frustrating experience with the device constantly interpreting unrelated motions into inputs.

I really liked Primal, but part of that was the fact that they had the balls to kill the main character. I’m assuming season 3 is going to start with Zombie Spear jumping over a megalodon.

I started self hosting in the days well before containers (early 2000’s). Having been though that hell, I’m very happy to have containers.
I like to tinker with new things and with bare metal installs this has a way of adding cruft to servers and slowly causing the system to get into an unstable state. That’s my own fault, but I’m a simple person who likes simple solutions. There are also the classic issues with dependency hell and just flat out incompatible software. While these issues have gotten much better over the years, isolating applications avoids this problem completely. It also makes OS and hardware upgrades less likely to break stuff.

These days, I run everything in containers. My wife and I play games like Valheim together and I have a Dockerfile template I use to build self-hosted serves in a container. The Dockerfile usually just requires a few tweaks for AppId, exposed ports and mount points for save data. That paired with a docker-compose.yaml (also built off a template) means I usually have a container up and running in fairly short order. The update process could probably be better, I currently just rebuild the image, but it gets the job done.

But, but, docker, kubernetes, hyper-scale convergence and other buzzwords from the 2010’s! These fancy words can’t just mean resource and namespace isolation!

In all seriousness, the isolation provided by containers is significant enough that administration of containers is different from running everything in the same OS. That’s different in a good way though, I don’t miss the bad old days of everything on a single server in the same space. Anyone else remember the joys of Windows Small Business Server? Let’s run Active Directory, Exchange and MSSQL on the same box. No way that will lead to prob… oh shit, the RAM is on fire.

It’s caused by the speaker not liking what another person is doing, but being unable to articulate a real argument against the behavior. So, they call it “childish” as a way to express that dislike in a socially acceptable fashion.

Mexican, because life is just better with spices.
American, given that American “culture” is really just cultural appropriation with added sugar and calories, I’ll get to try something close to every other cuisine.

I know that, during my own move from Windows to Linux, I found that the USB drive tended to lag under heavy read/write operations. I did not experienced that with Linux directly loaded on a SATA SSD. I also had some issues dealing with my storage drive (NVMe SSD) still using an NTFS file system. Once I went full Linux and ext4, it’s been nothing but smooth sailing.

As @MagicShel@lemmy.zip pointed out, performance will depend heavily on the generation of USB device and port. I was using a USB 3.1 device and a USB 3.1 port (no idea on the generation). So, speeds were ok-ish. By comparison, SATA 2 can have a transfer rate of 2 GB/s. And while the SSD itself may not have saturated that bandwidth, it almost certainly blew the transfer rate of my USB device out of the water. When I later upgraded to an NVMe drive, things just got better.

Overall, load times from the USB drive is the one place I wouldn’t trust testing Linux on USB. It’s going to be slower and have lag compared to an SSD. Read/Write performance should be comparable to Windows. Though, taking the precaution of either dual booting or backing up your Windows install can certainly make sense to test things out.

Watched Napoleon on Apple+. Had to pause every 10 minutes or less to explain the historical context to my wife. Even having some knowledge of the historical context, the movie was a rushed mess. While I understand that some reviewers thought the movie was too long, it really needed to be longer. Like, HBO limited series long. The whole context around the first French Revolution, The Terror and Napoleon’s rise to, and fall from power needs a lot more screen time to really cover. That, or just give up on the history and make a movie about a controlling, abusive relationship.