𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍

       🅸 🅰🅼 🆃🅷🅴 🅻🅰🆆. 
 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍 𝖋𝖊𝖆𝖙𝖍𝖊𝖗𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖓𝖊𝖍𝖆𝖚𝖌𝖍 
  • 7 Posts
  • 980 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: August 26th, 2022

help-circle


  • There are some excellent apps out there, and by and large they look and work better than commercial apps, IME. So I disagree with the assertion that I have to stay with commercial software.

    What I was asking for, in my post, was not which apps have better UX than Facebook, but rather which of the very many OSS, federated (although, not necessary for my use case), self-hosted platforms fit the specific use, and ideally with a straightforward iOS mobile app. Doesn’t have to be pretty; just has to be able to quickly take and post photos to a private channel/community/wall.

    Circles really is quite nice in all respects. I think they’re hindered by their choice of backend. I’ve been using Matrix for years, and key management has always been a hot mess. I wouldn’t be surprised if the issues we encountered were related to Matrix’s god-awful and buggy PK negotiation & management process.





  • You mean, they’re mounting something that isn’t an SD card to the /sdcard directory? Like something truly evil, such as mount -t btrfs -o subvol=@home / /sdcard? Or do you think there’s not anything mounted there; it’s just a directory in the root partition? None of that would make any sense.

    If they’re letting whatever automount tool (eg udevil) do its thing, this is practically impossible. And if they know enough to do it by hand, I think they’d have answered the direct question of “which filesystem” with a filesystem rather than a mount point. Don’t you think? We still don’t know what filesystem they’re working with, since they haven’t answered the question.



  • It doesn’t matter. FAT filesystems - which are usually the default on SD cards, simply do not support ownership or file permissions. Linux emulates these attributes at mount time, but they apply to the entire SD card. You can mount an SD card and tell Linux to act as if root owns everything on the card; you that you own everything on the card; and it will be so until you unmount it and remount it with a different ownership.

    These are filesystem level attributes, not device attributes. If you have a modern internal nvme drive and you format it with vfat, you will not be able to set permissions or ownership at the file level, but only at mount time, for the entire drive.



  • The power to choose, just before dying, to come back to life as a healthy 30 y/o.

    But you probably meant only selfless acts allowed, hence the “sacrifice” verbiage. In that case, instantaneous worldwide post-scarcity society. That’d address most of the world’s ills, eventually. Being ultra-rich means nothing in post-scarcity; not needing Middle-East oil and African mineral resources would eliminate most international meddling in those locations. While it wouldn’t immediately address climate change or cure all diseases, it’d mean enough food and energy for everyone, and it’d give us the means to accomplish these.

    If so many of us weren’t spending all our time working just to feed, clothe, and house ourselves, we could accomplish much as a species.


  • A studio should be able to afford a good LTO tape drive for at least one backup copy; LTO tapes last over 30 years and suffer less from random bitrot than spinning disks. Just pay someone to spend a month duplicating the entire archive every couple of decades. And every decade you can also consolidate a bunch of tapes since the capacity has kept increasing; 18TB tapes are now available: $/MB it’s always far cheaper to use tape.

    They could have done that with the drives, but today you’d have to go find an ATA IDE or old SCSI card (of you’re lucky) that’ll work on a modern motherboard.

    But I’d guess their problem is more not having a process for maintaining the archives than the technology. Duplicating and consolidating hard drives once a year would have been relatively cheap, and as long as they verified checksums and kept duplicates, HDs would have been fine too.







  • Your logic makes sense. To OP’s point, though, you wear an engagement ring to show that you are engaged; a wedding ring to display you are married/wed. The argument for it being called when you receive it is weakened by the fact that most people remove their rings when an engagement is broken, or they get divorced. Or, they move the ring to a different finger, at which point it’s no longer an engagement or wedding ring, right? It’s just a ring.

    If the rings were named after the event of reception, they’d still be called wedding and engagement rings even after a broken relationship. They’re “was” rings; ex-wedding-rings. No longer engagement rings.

    So the more I think about it, the more I’m with OP - the rings represent a state, and so wedding rings should be called “marriage” rings to represent the state of being engaged/married, rather than the singular event of the giving.


  • Good eye; I didn’t think about looking at the trees. It looks pre-Fall, but this is the South; I wouldn’t be surprised if there were still leaves on the trees into late September.

    This looks like a farm to me. That bunker is almost certainly a converted ice-house, but could also be slave housing. I’d guess ice-house, as that’s what they look like in the mid-Atlantic. Also, I’d have expected fortifications to be built outside the city, given the nature of warfare in the mid-1800’s. Surely they wouldn’t have built those barriers in a more suburban area? The barriers looking fairly intact is what makes me suspect a “before” photo.