You should get some vipes anyway, they make a safety rated ballistic pair.
Once I had a pair bought from someone on eBay break on me and they just wanted to confirm there was a joke written on the frame before sending a replacement pair for free. I think I had to pay shipping or something but standing behind an eBay purchase from a third party is cool.
I would recommend people not do that unless they know they need to and again, if you know you need to you’re not asking on lemmy.
Hosting your own secrets not only puts the burden of protecting, providing access to and preserving the secrets entirely on you, but puts a very unique set of hosting goals squarely on you as well.
Even a skilled administrator with significant resources at hand would often be better served by simply using bitwarden instead of hosting vaultwarden.
An example I used in another thread about password managers was a disaster. When your local server is inoperable or destroyed and general local network failure makes your cloud accessible backup unreachable, can you access your secrets safely from a public computer at the fire department, church or refugee center?
Bitwarden works well from public computers and there’s a whole guide for doing it as safely as possible on their website.
It’s a duplication of functionality in kernel/dma.
That’s why the submitter didn’t say “I didn’t submit to kernel/dma, checkmate libs!”.
The intent is to duplicate functionality in kernel/dma then get it included directly or linked to.
That’s what the r4l project is trying to do explicitly!
Before you say that kernel/dma didn’t have functional easy to use rust bindings, so the commit couldn’t have duplicated functionality: someone on kernel/dma said they didn’t want that and suggested using the c bindings instead which is what every other language has to do. Which means there was already a solution that was functional.
It’s like if there’s a community bicycle and you bring your drill and tap set so you can mount your bottle caddy and the community says “please don’t make a hole we have to tig in. Just use a pipe strap.” The right answer isn’t to start building a whole new down tube you can tap for an m5 for your bottle caddy, it’s to just use a pipe strap for your bottle caddy.
I didn’t read the linked article (or any linked article about this) because I’ve been reading the mailing list. Reporting on the kernel and people’s behavior on the list is tiring and often includes a bunch of baseless speculation.
I don’t think that rust in the kernel is for naught or impeding progress. I think the patterns of expanding the scope of conversation to the absolutely philosophical level that some rust mailing list exchanges have done and kicking decisions up the chain or requesting a set of accommodations be made to the existing processes and methods fall broadly into the tactics outlined in the simple field sabotage manual.
I think it’s that behavior that isn’t going to get anywhere or solve problems.
I don’t think that the kernel codebase has been infected with rust. I think that especially after Linus said “sure, see what happens” to the suggestion of taking in rust work rust devs have been making tons of commits and sometimes it’s accepted, sometimes it’s rejected and often a border is created and there’s friction along it like this example.
Again, so much of the discussion around kernel mailing list exchanges excludes the context that what hellwig is talking about is not rust in the kernel at all or even r4l but a split code base.
I dealt with a c/c++ codebase once and it was beyond my meager abilities to handle both those ostensibly similar languages at the same time and I had people who were very knowledgeable in c involved with the project.
So when someone says “I think a split codebase is cancer to the Linux kernel” or “I will oppose this (split codebase) with all my energy” I’m like “yeah, that makes sense.”
I also need to clarify that I don’t think anyone is sabotaging anyone else and my intent in bringing up the simple field sabotage manual was to point out that the behaviors don’t necessarily indicate sabotage but fall into a broad category of behavior that isn’t gonna solve problems or get anywhere which is why it’s included in the manual.
I wasn’t aware it was circulating in social media recently and about fifteen years ago when I got exposed to it the main lessons to draw were not that people doing those things were active saboteurs but that those behaviors can lead to waste of energy and resources and they’re the first thing to avoid interacting with.
My exposure to and understanding of the manual was “here are some things to avoid in your own life” not “here’s how to throw a wrench into their plans!”
It’s surprising to see that statement get brought up in the news considering it’s immediately followed by a parenthetical specifically enumerating a multi language code base as the subject not rust specifically.
Iirc it’s even preceded by something to the effect of “I like rust, it’s good and there’s nothing wrong with projects that use it”.
The news coverage of kernel mailing list stuff is always so needlessly breathless.
I don’t think the ends are those of the cia, and I didn’t say that the means were either, only that they were similar to those in a famous mid century guide for those trying to halt or hijack organizations.
I don’t think the rust devs are a cia opp, before you ask. I think some rust devs and even proponents of rust who only cheer from the sidelines are sometimes behaving in ways that raise red flags. I think it’s natural and laudable that the existing devs and maintainers are alarmed by that same behavior. It’s their job.
I also think Linus position on rust has been stretched to the point of breaking and I personally find it hard to take positions seriously that distill the complex process of integrating new languages into a very old very large codebase with many full time developers into “Linus said I could”.
My understanding is that the rust code in question implemented parts of the c dma interface so that rust programs could use that instead of the c dma interface.
I’m out in the world, not sitting in front of a computer with the source open so that guess will have to do for now.
The most immediate problem with having two different dma interfaces is that now you have two maintainers and an extra step at best when making any changes.
The context is that hellwig doesn’t want another maintainer or deal with a split codebase in the dma subsystem which I honestly agree with.
If I were a maintainer in that position I’d be barring the doors too. It’s not a driver for some esoteric realtek wireless card or something.
Even if I didn’t agree with that position it’s normal to only post on the kernel mailing list about shit you actually care deeply about because it’s public and aside from all your fellow devs taking the time to read what you wrote, psychotic nerds like myself watch it and will try to read the tea leaves too!
Tldr: someone wants to put rust in the dma part of the kernel (the part that accesses memory directly)(it’s a memory allocator abstraction layer written in rust which rust code can use directly instead of dealing with the c allocator abstraction layer), is told that rust should use the extant methods to talk to the c dma interface, replies that doing so would make rust programs that talk to dma require some more code, gets told “that’s fine. We can’t do a split codebase”. The two parties work towards some resolution, then hector martin comes in and acts like jerk and gets told to fuck off by Linus.
Martin is no lennart poettering but I don’t try to see things from his perspective anymore.
It’s worth noting that Linus’ “approval” of rust in the kernel isn’t generally seen as a blanket endorsement, but a willingness to see how it might go and rust people have been generally trying to jam their code everywhere using methods that rival the cia simple field sabotage manual.
I don’t think it’s on purpose (except for maybe Martin) but a byproduct of the kernel maintainers moving slowly but surely and the rust developers moving much faster and some seeing the solution to that slow movement as jamming their foot in the door and wedging it open.
First things first: put real feet on your couch so you’re not doing more damage.
The broader the better.
Some people already talked about ironing and it can make a difference but you gotta get down to the wood surface with sandpaper, learn how to iron wood then successfully actually do it.
Dents as big as these would require multiple passes with the iron over time.
Your real best bet would be to call a handyman or more likely a flooring place and have them give you an estimate on repair. They’ll be able to tell you if you have some kind of tongue in groove, roll or actual hardwood floor and explain what your options are. You’ll also know how much you’re gonna be paying to get whatever the landlord is holding back from them.
If you do call someone out there, find out what they charge for an estimate and pay them more on top of it in cash. People hate giving estimates because it’s someone shopping around who’s gonna try to get them down to the lowest price and has no consideration for their expertise and experience. Being willing to pay in cash and then some cements you as a customer, not a looky-loo.
If you’re planning to leave with enough time, register a business or trust or something, transfer your money to a shell company, repeat as necessary then transfer it to the place you’re trying to go.
Use the tools of the people with money not the tools of people who get patted down for loose change by the tsa.
Businesses don’t respond to “minor” shoplifting because of an impact to their bottom line. Retail has an idea called “float” that’s meant to account for all the losses not covered elsewhere by spoilage, damage, actual confirmed theft, etc and its always an order of magnitude larger than the volume of loss from shoplifting.
The response to shoplifting is primarily driven by insurance costs. It’s why the corner store down the street might hire some goon to stand around during peak hours and places that have to negotiate with insurance on millions of square footage spread over tens of thousands of locations tip the scales of local policy.
If they don’t do something about the “shoplifting problem”(not a problem, not a serious impact to their bottom line), their insurance plan that covers all the stores for hundreds of millions in damages and costs as much in premiums is null and void.
Okay but here’s why it won’t do what you’re asking about specifically: because not only does your shoplifting not impact the bottom line, the stores claiming there’s a shoplifting problem and then using their insurance premiums to justify draconian measures were already planning on implementing those draconian measures before they came up with the idea of shoplifting.
Pushing security system upgrades across the board outfits all stores with high definition cameras and rack mount processing equipment that can do object, facial and gait recognition. It creates a stream of data that the store has complete ownership of and can use for whatever it wants. It’s the first step to reversing one area that big box retail has lost ground to online retail in: custom pricing.
Custom pricing is arguably more powerful in the physical domain. Websites adopted it because getting people to buy shit they didn’t really want was already so hard that they said “shit, we got all this data, hey Jim, go infer what price this person will buy this stuff at!” And it worked.
Physical retailers don’t have the convenience of letting you shop from your couch, but they do have a much higher conversion rate (that’s how often a sale gets made to someone who doesn’t want to buy) when controlled for other factors. The conversion rate thing is under contention in some circles and sales and marketing people get all their news and job training from magazines so expect funny headlines if you look this up.
The point is that if you are online temporarily hovering over a marked down socket set you are only thinking about the price. If you’re stopped in target in front of a marked down socket set it’s cheap and immediate.
It’s the same logic behind the candy at the grocery checkout.
So if retailers can get the data that lets them fiddle with prices depending on who’s asking then they stand to make a tremendous amount of sales.
All that is to say that no one cares if you shoplift and so you won’t actually make any difference by doing so.
If you just wanna shoplift, do it. Your teenage girl ancestors are smiling down upon you as you palm that eye pencil.
None of them are grammatically correct because none of them are complete thoughts let alone sentences.
All three try to specify the particular monkey by enumerating that it can see your ears but do no more.
Take away the description of the monkeys ability to see your ears and what you’re left with is “the monkey”.
“The monkey” isn’t a sentence.
If you are the subject and what’s happening is that you’re wondering if the monkey can see your ears then the sentence you want is “I’m wondering if the monkey can see my ears.”
If, as I suspect, you’re using “the monkey whose ability to see my ears I’m wondering about” as the subject of some larger more complex and cool sentence then you gotta lay out that part before someone can give solid grammatical advice.
E: okay, it’s not fair to just tell you the answer when you’re already broadcasting a desire to read a bunch of stuff so here goes:
If you want to see analysis and consideration of the right from an outside perspective you ought to be on hexbear or grad. Both instances don’t have near as many sky is falling posts or comments and trend towards figuring out why something is happening within the framework of doctrinaire Marxism Leninism or imperialism or at least what should be done to mitigate the effects rather than having a big ol hissy fit over it.
If, as is implied by your post and comments (“ good spirited debate”, “ opposing and novel”, celebrated and debated“, “ worthy of discussion or debate”), you just wanna see people fight each other online then check out reddit, x (the everything app) and facebook where that happens often.
If you have, and this is a reach, the desire to understand people who you think are on that right wing spectrum around you in real life, go talk to them. People love telling you what they think and when they don’t it’s because they know something you don’t or they’re up to something.
There’s a lot of answers itt but heres a simpler one:
If you want to prevent people in power from having access to communications there are two methods employed, broadly speaking:
The first is to make a very secure, zero knowledge, zero trust, zero log system so that when the authorities come calling you can show them your empty hands and smirk.
Signal doesn’t actually do this, but they’re closer to this model than the second one I’m about to describe. Bear in mind they’re a us company so when the us authorities come to their door or authorities from some nation the us has a treaty with come to their door signal is legally required to comply and provide all the information they have.
The second is to simply not talk to the authorities. Telegram was closer to this model than signal, using a bunch of different servers in nations with wildly different extradition and information sharing mechanisms in order to make forcing them to comply with some order Byzantine to the point of not being worth it.
Eventually the powers that be got their shit together and put hands on telegrams owner so now they’re complying with all lawful orders and a comparison of the tech is how you’d pick one.
The technology behind the two doesn’t matter really but default telegram is less “secure” than default imessage (I was talking with someone about it so it’s on the old noggin’).
Removed by mod