rentar42

Do that two more times after you’ve died and you might have a shot!

That’s probably not a popular opinion here, but: parents do not have a right to their child. If the child was cool with this, then that is the important part (and from what I read I’d guess he would be).

Let’s posit it the other way around: a deeply religious pair of parents raises a kid that ends up being strongly anti-religion and comes to some “fame” due to that. Would you describe those celebrating that kid as “cunts” as well? And if not: why?

And no, I’m not religious myself and think a lot of that stuff is stupid and much of it is dangerous, but “those parents deserve better” is an argument that’s used in exactly the opposite way in other areas: to oppress kids that don’t “submit to the norm” that their parents think are best.

At a quick, manual count the roman catholic church has canonized about 40 new saints since 2000. Not all those other fuckers are in the distant past ;-)

I hear you, but I still think that the idea of the church and saints hasn’t gotten any worse: it’s “just” that the rest of the world has moved on when they haven’t (which is basically their founding principle).

Or put differently: saints haven’t gotten stupider, but our standards have changed.

Edit: I have to put my own point into relation: the only saints that actually lived in the 21st century from that list seem to be a pope and 21 IS beheading victims, so yeah, even among those recently canonized saints a huge chunk has bean dead for 100+ years.

But is it any more bullshit than any other saint? I don’t think it is.

He’s already #blessed since 2020, by the catholic church. That’s a precondition to becoming a saint.

I think the equivalent would be to let the fox guard the hen house.

And no, it’s not about having a scapegoat, it’s about putting exactly the wrong person with … let’s say “misaligned incentives” into some position (usually one of power).

That’s a huge part of the reason why it took so long to put out that official classification: They made sure that their classification would hold up in court. No one is served by getting it in a bit earlier, just for it to be thrown out at the first level of court, because someone got a bit lazy on collecting all the evidence and writing up a thorough report.

That’s oversimplifying it. There’s a difference between a politician being untruthful of what they promise or some corporation doing some bullshit PR about how much they love cause X and coordinated fake news campaigns to stoke anger and emotions to undermine functioning systems.

The former have to at least try to present with a straight face and can be called on their lies a few month down the line.

The later can make up all manner of bullshit and don’t have to hold back, because they have no “public face” other than that piece of fake news. And they don’t have to be able to stand up to any amount of journalistic scrutiny because as soon as enough people have read it, it’s had its effect: it doesn’t matter if it’s all proven to be made up after the fact, because the emotions that the initial reaction raised are the whole point: they are not trying to convince anyone about any facts, all they want is to influence emotions and behaviors.

First: love that that’s a thing, but I find the blog post hilarious:

We believe this choice must include the one to migrate your data to another cloud provider or on-premises. That’s why, starting today, we’re waiving data transfer out to the internet (DTO) charges when you want to move outside of AWS.

and later

We believe in customer choice, including the choice to move your data out of AWS. The waiver on data transfer out to the internet charges also follows the direction set by the European Data Act and is available to all AWS customers around the world and from any AWS Region.

But sure: it’s out of their love for customer choice that they offer this now. The fact that it also fulfills the requirements by the EDA is purely coincidental, they would have done it for sure.

Remember folks: regulation works. Sometimes corporations need the state(s) to force their hand to do the right thing.

I went with iDrive e2 https://www.idrive.com/s3-storage-e2/ 5 TB is 150$/year (50% off first year) for S3-compatible storage. My favorite part is that there are no per-request, ingress or egress costs. That cost is all there is.

without trusting anyone.

Well, except of course the entity that gave you the hardware. And the entity that preinstalled and/or gave you the OS image. And that that entity wasn’t fooled into including malicious code in some roundabout way.

like it or not, there’s currently no real way to use any significant amount of computing power without trusting someone. And usually several hundreds/thousands of someones.

The best you can hope for is to focus the trust into a small number of entities that have it in their own self interest to prove worthy of that trust.

Like many other security mechanisms VLANs aren’t really about enabling anything that can’t be done without them.

Instead it’s almost exclusively about FORBIDDING some kinds of interactions that are otherwise allowed by default.

So if your question is “do I need VLAN to enable any features”, then the answer is no, you don’t (almost certainly, I’m sure there are some weird corner cases and exceptions).

What VLANs can help you do is stop your PoE camera from talking to your KNX and your Chromecast from talking to your Switch. But why would you want that? They don’t normally talk to each other anyway. Right. That “normally” is exactly the case: one major benefit of having VLANs is not just stopping “normal” phone-homes but to contain any security incidents to as small a scope as possible. Imagine if someone figured out a way to hack your switch (maybe even remotely while you’re out!). That would be bad. What would be worse is if that attacker then suddenly has access to your pihole (which is password protected and the password never flies around your home network unencrypted, right?!) or your PC or your phone …

So having separate VLANs where each one contains only devices that need to talk to each other can severely restrict the actual impact of a security issue with any of your devices.

I’m sorry that my attempt to find out what you want to be able to provide useful help annoyed you.

Without any text it’s really hard to guess what you want and that’s why you get so many different answers.

Do you want to

• host a copy of wikipedia for yourself locally? Then download the database from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download (thanks zygo_histo_morpheus) and the sofware from https://www.mediawiki.org and get going. Both are freely available
• host a site that works like wikipedia but doesn’t contain its content, but your own? Just use MediaWiki.
• host a wiki, but not necessarily the one that powers wikipedia? Then pick one from https://github.com/awesome-selfhosted/awesome-selfhosted?tab=readme-ov-file#wikis

Note that I suspect you actually want the third one, in which case I suggest you avoid MediaWiki. Not because it’s bad, but because it’s almost certainly overkill for your use-case and there’s way simpler, easier-to-setup-and-maintain systems with fewer moving parts out there.

Increase the attack surface compared to what? If you don’t allow/enable any access to services inside your network from outside, then by definition you have fewer attack surfaces than if you add a VPN to that empty list.

So trivially the answer is “yes, it adds an attack surface”.

But what are the alternatives? If you directly expose each individual service on a dedicated port, for example, then you’d add many more (and usually less well hardened) attack surfaces instead.

So if the comparison is “expose 5 web-based services directly” vs. “expose one VPN like wireguard”, then the second option is almost always the clear winner when it comes to security (and frequently also when it comes to ease of setup as well as comfort).

This isn’t specific to just netdata, but I frequently find projects that have some feature provided via their cloud offering and then say “but you can also do it locally” and gesture vaguely at some half-written docs that don’t really help.

It makes sense for them, since one of those is how they make money and the other is how they loose cloud customers, but it’s still annoying.

Shoutout to healthcheck.io who seem to provide both nice cloud offerings and a fully-fledged server with good documentation.

I’ve not found a good solution for actual constant monitoring and I’ll be following this thread, but I have a similar/related item: I use healthcheck.io (specifically a self-hosted instance) to verify all my cron jobs (backups, syncs, …) are working correctly. Often even more involved monitoring solutions do not cover that area (and it can be quite terrible if it goes wrong), so I think it’ll be a good addition to most of these.

At a big enough LAN even just getting everyone to change that setting is probably harder than setting up a central cache. Don’t underestimate the amount of people that listen to instructions, say sure and then just either not do it, or fail to do it correctly.

The problem with your attitude is …

No. That’s your problem with my attitude.

“Free speech” absolutists don’t convince me with their hypotheticals.

Believe it or not: absolute free speech is not the end goal and not as valuable as you all believe.

Forbidding some kind of speech can be okay.

Because not forbidding it creates an awful lot of very real and very current pain. Somehow the theoretical pain that a similar law could create is more important for your argument, than the real and avoidable pain thatthis law is attempting to prevent.

but e.g. American free speech would be nonexistent

And I say that the specific American flavor of free speech is not very valuable at all.

Even if the state apparatus is bloated and needs to be improved, simply firing 10% of your workforce isn’t going to magically improve things (especially when done so quickly). You basically can’t know if you fire useful people or bloat. And for each “unnecessary” person you fire you also fire someone who was the only one in their department understanding their job and doing their actual work.