I would say, now it’s learning that actually sticking your head in the sand is only ever a delaying tactic. But, if it DID learn that, it’d mean it has surpassed us already.

It’s interesting that Wegovy costs more when it’s the same thing. I mean I understand it because Ozempic is meant to be prescribed only to diabetic patients. But, I think by now everyone knows people “obtain” Ozempic purely for weight loss.

Also this chart doesn’t include Trulicity (dulaglutide).

At home I’m on Linux but yes I also have a work laptop and I hate windows more and more daily.

Then I suggest they use an XNOR pointer instead! Checkmate patent trolls!

Huh. I am sure you could search for individual books. For sure you could do it by goodreads ID I think? Yes, adding an entire author as the primary way to do things is a bit much for some. I know for sure I have managed to do individual books before now.

Yep, same. Well I actually remember finding the best ways to copy a game on a tape error free first. Some, without protection you could just save back to tape for a digital reproduction (and this also allowed tape to disk conversion). Actually those with non destructive copy protection could kinda be copied too if you knew a little Z80 ASM. Others, you needed to copy tape to tape and hope the quality turned out OK.

But yes, then bringing your box of copied disks (Amiga in my case) into school and swapping with your friends was the way to go.

That’s fine. I’ll make my own internet. With blackjack, and hookers. In fact, forget the internet!

It’s a real shame because Readarr did work and they really just needed to fix their own metadata servers. No? Or were there other problems I’m not aware of?

I mean, I have to say I’ve hastened my own demise (in program terms) by over-engineering something that should be simple. Sometimes adding protective guardrails actually causes errors when something changes.

Yes, had the same happen. Something that should be simple failing for stupid reasons.

Yep. It seems they haven’t changed a thing about the format. Probably a script much older than mine on their end is generating it too.

I have a tool that I wrote, probably 5+ years ago. Runs once a week, collects data from a public API, translates it into files usable by the asterisk phone server.

I totally forgot about it. Checked. Yep, up to date files created, all seem in the right format.

Sometimes things just keep working.

With IPv6 for most use cases there’s actually more security. With privacy extensions (pretty sure it’s enabled on windows by default), when you make connections from your device, it uses a “private” IP. That is a randomly chosen address inside your network’s prefix, that changes regularly.

These addresses don’t accept incoming connections. You have a main address that doesn’t really change that you accept connections on. Firewall that for ports you want to allow and then hackers need to port scan 2^64 or 2^80 address space to find your real IPs in your prefix. If they capture your IP from a connection to a web server etc, they won’t have luck scanning you.

Again as per my post above, the biggest risk right now is bad default configurations on many home routers.

The “firewall” features are called connection tracking and, a firewall. With IPv6 I have my firewall setup very similar to NAT. Established and outgoing new connections are allowed (this is done using connection tracking). Incoming new connections are not allowed unless I open up a specific port.

Home firewalls SHOULD be setup the same for IPv6, a lot are not and IMO is the main problem right now.

Just lay down, and pretend you’re compiling.

Does /dev/null support sharding?

Yeah, but is it web scale?

On the one-hand I think it would be similar to how usenet works now for binaries. That is, once notified under DMCA (for the USA) and likely similar laws in other western countries you’re duty bound to remove it.

I don’t know if there would be other problems with hosting files when you don’t know what they are. Also in terms of defence against DMCA, how would the original file uploader defend against it when you can’t know what the file is without the key. Person A reports file xyz as infringing their copyright, Uploader B says it doesn’t. Normally you could re-instate it and let the two parties fight it out in court. But, I wonder how it would play out when you hosting the file don’t even know what it is.

I’m really not sure how it would really stack up against copyright law in general and more specifically laws for truly illegal content (e.g. CSAM), since you could be hosting that and never know.

Seems a bit more of a risky venture to me and more a question for an actually qualified legal advisor I’m afraid.

I’ve said this before. The UK online safety act if they enforce it hard against fediverse instances, it will be the end of federation, for UK users without a VPN at least. Because it puts too much on the shoulders of small site operators.

In this case though, the exception most countries have for site operators to avoid being responsible for their user’s posts is usually reliant on action being taken when content on your site is reported to you. There isn’t really an exception for saying “Umm, wasn’t from my site mate. Go follow the trail and get the original guy”. The argument will be, the site you control has the content, remove it.

In the UK in the 1990s there was a court case [1] that might even form the part of the case law behind the publisher exception. In that case the claimant stated that the ISP was alerted to forged usenet articles (usenet was pretty much a good analogue for modern federated content) that he believed defamed him. They did not remove the articles (presumably because they did not originate on their usenet server, by their users I am not sure). He sued them and the court ruled in his favour. There’s more nuance, but the take away is pretty much what we got in the law created later.

Since then we have enacted the Defamation Act 2013 [2], which has section 5 that gives SOME exemption to operators of websites that allow posts by third parties (that pretty much covers the fediverse). That makes it clear that if the claimant cannot identify the user (which would be the case for 99% of threadiverse users), and if you are informed about the content and do not take action, then you may be held accountable for the defamation. Now that just means that if they tell you X post is defamatory or should be removed for another legal reason, if you refuse to do so in a reasonable time period, then you can be held responsible and treated as the publisher of that message. So if it were to breach some law, they could sue you for it as if you posted it yourself. Which is kinda why I’d say just remove it if there’s any doubt at all. I’m not a legal expert, but that’s how I read the act.

I’m not sure how it works elsewhere. I live in the UK. But generally the rules are somewhat similar.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_v_Demon_Internet_Service [2] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/section/5

Well, legally there’s no reason to comply. At the same time I personally have no skin in the game and deleting the account locally won’t do much (unless you purge their content too).