corroded @ corroded @lemmy.world

Posts

26

Comments

408

Joined

2 yr. ago

It doesn't sound to me like this really negates the purpose of a VPN, more accurately it provides a way for someone on your local network to snoop on VPN traffic, if I understand correctly.

From how the article describes the attack, someone on your local network would have to set up a malicious DHCP server/gateway. The average home user who is using a VPN to mask their public IP probably doesn't need to worry about this.

Or am I misunderstanding?

I think you could make an argument that even burning plastic in a firepit vs sending it to a landfill are roughly equal. Climate change and air pollution are both major issues, but so is plastic waste and microplastics working their way into everything. I have no idea of the overall harm of burning plastic is less than throwing it away; they both pollute the environment. I can see the the logic in thinking burning is a viable alternative.

Ideally, though, people would just stop using disposable plastic. Plastic is a fantastic material, but it was never supposed to be for "use once and discard" items. For creating durable objects with a decent lifetime, sure, use plastic. Don't use it as wrapping over another plastic object.

I really think this depends largely on who you are and what you do with your phone. I have face recognition and fingerprint recognition both enabled on my phone. It's good enough to prevent a thief from gaining access to my device, and if law enforcement asked, there's nothing on my phone that could possibly be incriminating. Realistically, I'd have no issue just unlocking my phone and giving it to a police officer, although I do know well enough to always get a lawyer first. Biometrics add an extra layer of convenience; it's nice to just look at my phone and it unlocks. My concern personally is more about someone stealing my phone and accessing my accounts than self-incrimination.

If I ever was going to put myself in a situation where I'd run afoul of the authorities, I'd leave my phone at home anyway.

This is certainly good news, and I don't intend to detract from it.

That being said, my opinion as an American is that the kind of missiles we need to be sending to Ukraine are the nuclear kind. The Russian government has said that they will use nuclear weapons in the event that the existence of their country is threatened. Fine, I understand that. Ukraine needs to have the same leverage. The existence of their country as they know it is being threatened; it would certainly turn the tables for them to say "Yes, we have nuclear weapons, and we'll only use them if our continued existence is being threatened. By the way, you're threatening it; you should really stop."

I run uBlock origin on every device I can. I use PiHole on my home network. I've canceled every streaming service in favor of self-hosting, and IoT devices are blocked from the internet. Incoming connections are geoblocked. Meta is blocked at the DNS level. Suffice to say I have put a lot of effort into privacy and security.

I still can't get rid of Google, though, solely because of Gmail. I've had the same address for so many years (ever since the invite-only days), it would be an absolute nightmare to try to change it.

I have heard the same thing about ACs, but I think it depends on the unit. The window units that I use have a switch on the front that literally just turns them off; there's no delay time for the compressor. It's the same as pulling the plug.

I've used single and dual-hose portable ACs in the past, and I only have dual-hose units now. This is purely anecdotal, but when I had single-hose units, they would maintain the temperature throughout the day as it warmed up, but they didn't do a great job of cooling. A dual-hose AC with a similar capacity was actually able to lower the temperature.

An executioner is not a murderer if the condemned is guilty.

I don't hate children. They're brought into the world whether they like it or not, and they should have every chance to succeed as long as they put forth some sort of effort. What I do hate are parents who have a child without any consideration to what they're doing. No couple should ever have more than 2 children, at least until the population declines. Children should not be punished because of their parents poor reproductive choices. Parents should be punished, not rewarded.

I was a drain on society until I started working. My parents should have paid higher taxes to compensate, or perhaps thought twice about having a child in the first place. I can't go back in time 40 years and change tax laws to support what I've learned as an adult, but I can certainly advocate for better laws now.

Furthermore, I will not be a drain on other people's children once I reach the age that I can no longer work. At some point, I will reach an age where my physical and mental state no longer allows me to be a productive member of society. With any luck, that will be very close to my death; hopefully, I'll die while still gainfully employed. If that doesn't happen, though, my retirement savings will be more than enough to last me through the very few years between the point that I stop working and pass away.

I seriously doubt that "Jesus" from the Christian bible actually existed. Most likely a man with the same name existed and eventually morphed into a folk hero of sorts. That being said, the individual whom the Jesus myth is based on was absolutely from the Middle East. Even Christians won't argue this. He had to have been some shade of "not white."

I dislike consoles. I hate the controllers, and I hate being stuck in front of the TV; I'll play a game on PC or not at all. That being said, the gaming industry is the perfect example of where free-market capitalism should be allowed to take its course. Nobody needs to play games; it's a luxury and a recreational activity. If a development studio wants to release a game just for one specific console, let them. Maybe it will be a good business decision, and maybe it will fail miserably and cost them millions in lost revenue. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter one way or another. Play a different game.

I did some research on this, and it turns out you're absolutely correct. I was under the impression that ECC was a requirement for a ZFS cache. It does seem like ECC is highly recommended for ZFS, though, due to the large amount of data it Storrs in memory. I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable using non-ECC memory for ZFS, but it is possible.

Anecdotally, I did have one of my memory modules fail in my TrueNAS server. It detected this, corrected itself, and sent me a warning. I don't know if this would have worked had I been using non-ECC memory.

One thing to keep in mind if you go with an i5 or i7 is that you won't have the option to use ECC memory. If you're running TrueNAS, you'll need ECC memory for the ZFS cache. A Xeon E5 v2 server is old, but still has a more than enough power for your use case, and they're not particularly expensive.

If you need something more powerful, you can find some decent Xeon Gold systems on eBay, but they'll be a bit more pricey. The new Xeon W chips are also an option, but at least for me, they're prohibitively expensive.

I have ReVanced on my phone, STN on my TVs, and uBlock+SponsorBlock on my PCs. I was looking for an alternative that I could run on a server and would replace the various different apps I'm using. TubeArchivist ended up working perfectly for me; your mileage may vary.

I decided to give up on it. Looking through the docs, they recommend that due to "reasons," it should be restarted at least daily, preferably hourly. I don't know if they have a memory leak or some other issue, but that was reason enough for me not to use it.

I installed TubeArchivist, and it suits my needs much better. Not only do I get an archive of my favorite channels, but when a new video is released, it gets automatically downloaded to my NAS and I can play it locally without worrying about buffering on my painfully slow internet connection.

This is so wrong it's not even funny. Look at CO2 emissions and climate change. Do you really think we'd be destroying the environment the same way we do now if industry wasn't producing products for billions of people?

I don't really have a problem with adults that study until they're 30, as long as they come out of school being an expert in a field that's actually useful to society. A medical student just out of high school who goes into pre-med, medical school, then residency will be close to that age by the time they finish their education. Somebody who hops from major to major and eventually gets a degree in philosophy when they're 30... maybe find something that's actually useful first. If you're working and contributing and decide you want to study art history for your own personal edification, go for it.

But you seem to be of the opinion that having children is a selfish act that society should punish rather than encourage.

This is going off on a bit of a tangent, but you're absolutely right. Having children is the most selfish act possible. Nobody on the planet asked to come into existence; we're all here because of a choice our parents made. Regardless of your place in the world, no human experiences their entire life without pain and suffering. I am personally very happy with my life, but there have of course been ups and downs. By producing a child, you're guaranteeing that another person will experience suffering and sadness. Nobody lives forever, so you're condemning another person to death.

Having children (to some degree, not unchecked) is necessary for the human race to continue to exist, but the idea that producing and raising a child is a selfless act is as far from the truth as you can get. If you consider a theoretical world where everyone was suddenly sterile, the human race would cease to exist within a very short time. A lot of other things would cease to exist: Sadness and heartbreak, murder, rape, war, terrorism, poverty, starvation.

One might argue that brief periods of happiness give a reason for continuing human existence, but is this really true? Most people, if they're lucky, go through life in a neutral state; we might not be happy or sad, but we're "doing okay." If suffering is a -1 and happiness is a +1, with everyday life being a 0, then every person is going to ultimately average out to somewhere around zero. By having a child, you're making an irrevocable choice that you want another human being to live a life that's either neutral to a point that's statistically insignificant or predominantly negative, and you're making this choice because something in your brain is telling you to. It's the epitome of selfishness.

Having taxes ensures that all members of society get the same benefit. Lets say for instance that it costs the fire department $5000 to put out a house fire for a low-income family. My income is higher, so I pay more taxes toward the fire department, but they still get the same response to their house fire that I would. That's exactly how it should be.

Now lets say that same low-income family has 8 kids. They don't need to have 8 kids (they don't need to have any), and regardless of whether they're a low-income household or part of the 1%, chances are a good number of those children won't grow up to produce a net gain to the rest of society. The parents both work entry-level jobs, so they're at least productive members of society. The 8 kids are still in school and produce no immediate benefit to society. Why should I be paying for their children when their children produce no benefit to any of the taxpayers; they could have just as easily aborted every pregnancy and not only would they be better able to support themselves, there would be 8 less non-productive individuals for the taxpayers to support. Once those 8 kids start working, then yes, my taxes should go to help support their healthcare, housing, food, etc; they might be the person making my sandwich, or they might be the person doing my brain surgery. The point is that they are contributing what they can.

Anyone who is productive in the world should receive the same social benefits as any other person who is productive in their same societal group. Children are not productive. They have the possibility of being productive, but not until they reach maturity. Until they reach that point, the only people who should be paying for them are the ones who made the poor decision to bring them into the world in the first place.

You’re saying more children should live in poverty so that former children with jobs get a small tax break.

I would never suggest that children or adults should live in poverty. As long as someone is doing a job to the best of their ability, they should at least make a living wage, and I would gladly pay higher taxes or an increased cost on goods to help support that.

What I am suggesting is producing a child is ultimately a personal choice made by the parents, and they should foot the bill associated with their choice. If someone can't afford a child, they should not have a child (and the rest of us should help pay for birth control or abortion). If someone has a child that they can't afford, the child should be removed from the household and given to a family that is both willing and financially able to support a child. If that's not an option, the child should be placed in a state-funded care center and given an education and basic necessities until they become an adult. The ultimate goal is for adults to think twice about reproducing unless they are fully capable of raising a child on their own and for a large number of people to stop having children.