Take it to an electronics recycling center. Seriously.
If you already have a homelab, you plan to replace it, you don't want to repair it, and you don't have an obvious use case for another machine (it's just another computer; you either have the need for another computer or you don't), then holding onto it is just hoarding.
Yes I'm aware of the security tradeoffs with testing, which is why I've started refraining from mentioning it as an option as pedants like to pop out of the woodwork and mention this exact issue every damn time.
Also, testing absolutely gets "security support", the issue is that security fixes don't land in testing immediately and so there can be some delay. As per the FAQ:
Security for testing benefits from the security efforts of the entire project for unstable. However, there is a minimum two-day migration delay, and sometimes security fixes can be held up by transitions. The Security Team helps to move along those transitions holding back important security uploads, but this is not always possible and delays may occur.
Thats seriously overstating things. I've been running testing or sid for years and years, and I can only remember a handful of times where anything meaningfully broke. And typically its dependency breakages, not actual software breakages.
Debian stable is for servers or other applications where security and predictability are paramount. For that application I absolutely do not want a lot package churn. Quite the opposite.
Meanwhile Sid provides a rolling release experience that in practice is every bit as stable as any other rolling release distro.
And if I have something running stable and I really need to pull in the latest of something, I can always mix and match.
What makes Debian unique is that it offers a spectrum of options for different use cases and then lets me choose.
If you don't want that, fine, don't use Debian. But for a lot of us, we choose Debian because of how it's managed, not in spite of it.
That's roughly right, but that doesn't make him in any meaningful way "good". Of course I also don't think anyone who decided to drop the bombs on Japan was a "good guy". But maybe that's why I'm not a pure utilitarian.
Absolutely not, unless you adhere to pure utilitarianism. Veidt kills untold numbers of innocent people on a self-imposed quest to do what he believes will save humanity. He was a straight up megalomaniac and the only upside is that his murderous actions eventually lead to peace.
(They could easily move to an ipc mechanism that doesn't require binding a port on a network interface but that'd require time and effort and why bother when the goal is to ship something fast and cheap while the AI hype is strong)
Sounds like a fun way to directly mess with their model though.
Yes! God this show is underrated. They got bit by the "oh look it's another Mad Men" stamp in season 1, but then the show pivots in season 2/3 and becomes something unique and special. And then I spent season 4 with a tissue box nearby. One of my favourite shows of all time.
If somebody wanted to draw animated kiddie porn they could still do that. How far would you go until you ban crayons
It's genuinely impressive how completely you missed my point.
How about another analogy: US federal law allows people to own individual firearms, but not grenades.
But they're both things that kill people, right? Why would they be treated differently?
Hint: it's about scale.
The same is true of pipe bombs. But anyone can make a pipe bomb. Genie is out of the bottle, right? So why are there laws regulating manufacture and ownership of them? Hmm...
And how many times have you made this comment, only to have it pointed out that there is a big fucking difference between a human manually creating fake images via Photoshop at human speed using human skills, versus automating the process so it can be done en masse at the push of a button?
Because that's a really big fucking difference.
Think: musket versus gatling gun. Yeah, they both shoot bullets, but that's about where the similarity ends.
Is the genie out of the bottle at this point? Probably.
But to claim this doesn't represent a massive shift because Photoshop? Sorry but that's at best naive, and it's starting to get exhausting seeing this "argument" trotted out repeatedly by AI apologists.
For folks unaware, the technical git term, here, is a 'ref'. Everything that points to a commit is a ref, whether it's HEAD, the tip of a branch, or a tag. If the git manpage mentions a 'ref' that's what it's talking about.
If the bar is "never made a mistake or published a questionable article in the entire history of the institution", then there's no such thing as a "newspaper of record" and I'm fine with that. Frankly, I never liked that idea as no one, no institution, no media outlet, no person, is totally free from bias, and no one should treat any one paper as universally authoritative.
But claiming the NYT is "unreliable" now, today, based on the actions of people who, if not dead are almost certainly retired today, is ridiculous.
zaphod @ zaphod @lemmy.ca Posts 0Comments 288Joined 2 yr. ago
Take it to an electronics recycling center. Seriously.
If you already have a homelab, you plan to replace it, you don't want to repair it, and you don't have an obvious use case for another machine (it's just another computer; you either have the need for another computer or you don't), then holding onto it is just hoarding.