go $fsck yourself @ gofsckyourself @lemmy.world

My username is a wordplay on the Linux command filesystem check: [fsck](htt

---

Read more

Posts

14

Comments

1,232

Joined

1 yr. ago

Could we get some more meme with that jpeg?

Jabba could've been NalHutta

To add to that, to effectively use docker and basically anything important for self-hosting is to learn the basics of Linux.

A good resource for that is https://learnlinux.tv/

At first I read the title as

How much pareidolia is too much?

And I was bracing for a fun thread, but then my brain caught up and now I'm disappointed.

Yeah, I'm not buying into your trolling. Go somewhere else.

Interesting how you feel the need to disingenuously misrepresent my point.

"fastfouriertransfem" is a great username

Opponents beware

What registrar was that? Were they as big as Cloudflare? How exactly did they "go tits up"? Isn't the situation you describe a completely different scope from an individual's usecase? It's also an anecdotal point of data without including the full context of how common that situation is. "It happened to me once, and I have heard stories" does not necessarily mean it's common enough for everyone to prepare for every time. I'll remain skeptical of the

Mainly, though, I'm not saying it's a bad idea in total. I just think that for someone who is inexperienced with DNS management and self-hosting, those types of concerns are already unlikely and just keeping the environment simple and cost less has far more value than being prepared for unlikely scenarios. It could even prevent self-inflicted issues by keeping it simple, which would be far more likely than Cloudflare's infrastructure creating a problem that they have to remediate themselves.

If anything, the true argument for risk mitigation would be to have multiple DNS servers for redundancy.

I just don't believe that, in this type of usecase, it's worth pressing for and that there's more of an argument to keep it simple.

Additionally, you can leave out trying to use your credentials and a hypothetical group of people to make your argument for you. It makes it seem like you're trying to talk down.

Thanks. It seems it would be ideal to include that information in the post title or body.

@frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml Would you mind adding that context, please?

I guess I'm questioning if "unmoderated" has another specific meaning, but both moderators on there have disappeared.

Any update on this? The community is unmoderated right now.

What's the context of these words?

Reel like a fishing reel? Reel back from something?

Jig as a dance? A jig tool?

I get that you're likely exaggerating by saying "it's no extra work", but managing another account is markedly extra work. It will also cost extra because Cloudflare does not add any markup for registration, which is why they are the cheapest registrar.

I think the convenience and reduction of cost greatly outweighs the highly unlikely situation where "something goes fucky". If it does, then what? You can't make DNS updates for a little while?

The most likely reason to get locked out is billing issues, or maybe you lost your login information or something like that, which is going to be the same risk regardless of who your registrar is. Otherwise you'd have to be involved in some sort of legal issue associated with your domain and that is a much deeper issue than can be solved by simply changing nameservers.

Look, it was not a perfect analogy. There's no need to be nitpicky and only focus on the fact the analogy is not perfect. I was grasping at straws to try to convey a difficult concept while I felt people were attacking me.

Actually, you've pretty much nailed what I've been trying to say.

That's a good way of rephrasing my point. Calling it "black and white" is an analogy and not explicitly what they see. While we don't know how the brain interprets vision without comes from our perspective ("is my blue your blue?"), it's not "black and white" in the way we know it.

The title just states it as if they explicitly see only "black and white" and I was just trying to point out the difference. It spreads bad information phrased like that.

I don't need an article to describe how colors are reproduced through RGB, not only because I already am familiar with it but because it is irrelevant to the discussion.

The problem is that you're trying to relate things that are entirely incompatible. You cannot describe the concept of an entire lack of any experience with color by using colors. That's the exact issue I am trying to point out. The idea of "black and white" or "grayscale" simply requires having experience with color, so that does not apply.

It seems you came here just to piss on my analogy, rather than trying to help and have a discussion.

Null would be completely blind, no visual data at all.

Then what is 0 and 1 when you interpret my example like this? I think you missed the point of my example.

The whole point is to say that "no color" does not mean black and white. It just means no color data. Similar to how a person born completely blind does not see all black, they just don't see anything at all. They don't receive any visual data and their brain does not process color, light intensity, or any optic information at all.

No. The article states "total absence of working cones in their eye retinas, leaving them with only rods".

I'm trying to say that not being able to see color does not mean black and white or grayscale, it means the brain does not decipher color hue.

My example of the blind spot was to outline that a lack of receptors does not mean black, white, grey, whatever. It means a lack of signals to the brain to process anything. In the case of lacking cones, it means an inability to process color. When it's described as "grayscale" that's to help people understand a concept that is difficult for some people to grasp.

Think of it this way. Black is like 0, White is like 1, and Grayscale would be a float (decimal) between 0 and 1, while Colorblind is like NULL.