Careful, or the next thing you know, we’ll have lightning powered tumbling sheep evolving, as a defense response.

Sure, go ahead, do all your tests for stuff involving I/O by doing real I/O, and do some containerization or whatever to maintain reproducibility. Don’t come crying to me when your test runtime goes from 10 seconds to 20 minutes, and everyone stops actually running them.

So, you’re a tech nerd who wants an addictive game?

Factorio.

Also Satisfactory, but I’m not sure how well it runs on Linux. Fairly sure Factorio will run on just about anything

Windows 11 has ads NOW, in the enterprise install I’m provided at work.

You can’t just steer people into bridge abutments

So thaaaaaat’s what happened with the Francis Scott Key Bridge.

Generally speaking, fault protection schemes need only account for one fault at a time, unless you’re a really large business, or some other entity with extra-stringent data protection requirements.

RAID protects against drive failure faults. Backups protect against drive failure faults as well, but also things like accidental deletions or overwrites of data.

In order for RAID on backups to make sense, when you already have RAID on your main storage, you’d have to consider drive failures and other data loss to be likely to occur simultaneously. I.E. RAID on your backups only protects you from drive failure occurring WHILE you’re trying to restore a backup. Or maybe more generally, WHILE that backup is in use, say, if you have a legal requirement that you must keep a history of all your data for X years or something (I would argue data like this shouldn’t be classified as backups, though).

Why the hell is a professional tech business not relying almost-exclusively in ethernet, anyway?

rsync, for sure. That’s what I used when I had to migrate a 10TB datastore to a new machins.

A DNS Proxy/Forwarder server? That’s where you would configure how your .internal domain resolves to IPs on your internal network. Machines inside the network make their DNS queries to that server, which either serves them from cache, or from the local mappings, for forwards them off to a public/ISP server.

Same. Confirmed through both Jerboa and the web UI.

He knows the answer. It’s a rhetorical question, meant to piss off iPhone users.

Did anyone really think that making UEFI systems the equivalent of a mini OS was a good idea? Or having them be accessible to the proper OS? Was there really no pushback, when UEFI was being standardized, to say “images that an OS can write to are not critical to initializing hardware functionality, don’t include that”? Was that question not asked for every single piece of functionality in the standard?

deleted by creator

TIL that the AI character Roko Basilisk in Questionable Cobtent is a reference.

As someone with 0 investment in this whole ecosystem, I saw and perused this article like a week ago, and my immediate impression was “Why is this guy constantly saying ‘Wayland breaks XXXXX’? Wayland isn’t breaking anything, it’s new tech. Wayland has certain features, or it doesn’t or doesn’t yet. The only folks breaking anything are those swapping use of X with Wayland, within various apps or tech stacks, potentially prematurely, where Wayland doesn’t yet have the full set of features needed.”

Whoever this is seems to have a really poor understanding of long-term software development, despite being way more invested in it than I am.

Excellent! I had a look at Monogame once and really liked what I saw. Only reason I didn’t stick with it was that it didn’t seem to have much maintenance weight behind it.

Love how this plays in relation to all the arguments of “well, you have to understand, Unity doesn’t turn a profit yet, they need to be able to make money”, from when they first announced the change.

Wow. Valid cert, matching icon, identical web page, and virtually-identical URL. I absolutely would have fallen for that, and I’ve been meaning to visit KeePass’s website and download the latest version, too.

Fun read.

So, is the implication here that ONLY Microsoft keys can be in the db, and thus they’re the ultimate authority on who gets signed? Does Microsoft somehow own the UEFI standard?

Relatedly, can anyone elaborate on their reason for refusing to sign GRUB? I’m not following just from that short quote.

That doesn’t seem terribly fun.