NateNate60 @ NateNate60 @lemmy.world

Posts

19

Comments

1,111

Joined

2 yr. ago

If you know the root password, then you can switch to the account called root using the su root command.

In Linux there is always a user called root, which is the only account allowed to perform most system management tasks. The sudo command just executes a commend as root. Most of the time you don't need to actually sign into the root account, just use sudo, but you can actually sign into it in the terminal as it is a real bona fide user account.

The sudoers file is located at /etc/sudoers. Do keep in mind that this file should not be edited directly. You can use the cat command which will print the content of a file to the terminal. So try cat /etc/sudoers.

I'm not sure exactly what causes this, but you can work around it as long as you can actually run commands as root (i.e. using sudo) in the terminal.

The command to add a new user is adduser.

The command to add a user to the administrators group (i.e. give them the ability to use sudo) is usermod -aG wheel.

These commands should be run as root by prepending sudo.

IIRC there's still an ICANN fee that has to be paid by the registrar per domain registered

I might be wrong, but I seem to recall there's an ICANN fee associated with registration as well.

Great idea! This will save the taxpayers literally hundreds of dollars in domain registration fees! That's over 0.0001¢ per taxpayer!!

If you actually bother to read it (regularly, not just once or twice on selected columns that you saw posted online), you would not think that. The opinion column is very neoliberal with a hint of libertarianism.

The Taiwan issue has exactly to do with the fact that sending official diplomatic representatives to it means recognising its legitimacy and sovereignty. Even though most Western countries already believe this, sending the representatives would be to express that they believe this which is what upsets the Chinese government. China doesn't care what people think as long as they keep it to themselves. It's when they get "embarrassed" on the world stage that Chinese leadership thinks it demands action.

In many localities voters have used initiative powers to ban red light cameras and in some jurisdictions red-light camera fines are deemed constitutional violations because the US Constitution requires those accused of crimes to be able to "confront their accuser" in court which is not possible if the accuser is a machine.

Especially not their opinion column but I'm just posting here because it's interesting to see what the neoliberals think about it and it's a good discussion point

Washington Post columnists said it would probably just capture the "Never Trumper" moderate Republican voters who currently begrudgingly vote Democratic because they understand that the Republican Party is nominating only yes-men and fascists.

The whole system of formal diplomatic recognition needs to die. Right now, "recognising" a government seems to be tantamount to acknowledging that government is legitimate and representative of the people. This is a very obstructive and unproductive system. It doesn't matter whether you "recognise" a government and it also doesn't matter what you decide to call your representatives to it. Refusing to recognise a government doesn't mean that group of people doesn't hold power or doesn't actually control territory. It just prevents you from engaging with them in a constructive manner. It's just a head-in-the-sand approach to intergovernmental relations.

If there's a group of people calling themselves a government that holds power over a group of people or a piece of territory that you are interested in, it shouldn't have to result in this whole game of charades. You should be able to send official representatives to that group without having to worry about offending everyone else. The whole concept of "recognition" is just nonsense.

While it is rude to honk immediately when the light turns green, it is also true that taking too long to accelerate when the light changes severely reduces traffic flow and causes congestion. And this is commonly caused by distracted drivers. You are supposed to release your brake and begin moving at roughly the same time as the car in front of you, i.e. when the car in front of you turns off their brake lights or when the traffic signal turns green if you're in the front.

Edit: "Too long" realistically means anything more than half a second. If everyone's reaction time was one second it would reduce the number of cars per green light probably by half. That doesn't mean it's polite to honk after half a second but if your reaction time is that bad you should not be driving.

So what did you mean when you began your comment with "actually it's the inverse"? Inverse of what?

I'm a bit confused by what you're trying to say here. It seems non sequitur if you are trying to say "borrowers of higher interest rate benefit less from inflation".

Your maths is not right. Inflation, in absolute terms, is a larger benefit to people with higher interest rates.

Let's consider the scenario where inflation is 10% for simplicity, and two borrowers who each borrow $100, but Borrower A at 5% annual simple interest and Borrower B at 25% annual simple interest. Both borrowers borrow the money at the beginning of Year 0.

Borrower A owes $105 in Year 1 dollars at the beginning of Year 1. This is equivalent to $95.45 in Year 0 dollars.

Borrower B owes $125 in Year 1 dollars at the beginning of Year 1. This is equivalent to $113.64 in Year 0 dollars.

Compared to a 0% inflation rate, Borrower A saved 9.55 Year 0 dollars and Borrower B saved 11.36 Year 0 dollars. Borrower B saved 1.81 more Year 0 dollars than Borrower B due to inflation (but paid 17.55 Year 0 dollars more overall because of interest).

Inflation reduces the real buying power of the money used to repay the loan by the inflation rate each year, regardless of your loan interest.

In absolute terms, inflation is better the higher your interest rate is, because the number of dollars it saves you goes up.

In the US, what's more likely is that they find some random accusation to pin on you Abrego Garcia-style and then just keep you in the legal system gauntlet by adding new charges as soon as the timer runs out for trial on the old ones.

The "some registry" they put you in is probably made up. Credit reporting agencies don't just accept claims of debt or delinquent accounts from any random person who claims to be a debt collector. In many cases, if it isn't coming from a financial institution, they will need to see a court judgement before entering it on your credit report.

Shocker: financial institutions want to know whether you have a good record of paying people back before deciding to lend you money