iotku

I briefly looked into it (from the same NixOS issues), there's a GitHub issue somewhere about it [1]

Effectively as I recall it a large amount of Sublime Text plugins internally rely on an old version of Python (3.3) which in turn relies on OpenSSL 1.1.1, there is concern that forcing the python version to something newer will largely break their plugin ecosystem as a lot of the plugins are expecting Python 3.3 and may not be compatible with 3.8 or later versions with supported OpenSSL.

It's probably not a major security risk unless the plugins are making network connections, but it is an unfortunate situation.

Edit: [1] https://github.com/sublimehq/sublime_text/issues/5984

Yeah that one has been rather concerning. In theory you follow all the firearm safety rules (especially watching where you're pointing) and if something goes haywire things turn out relatively fine, but I certainly wouldn't be comfortable using one personally.

A lot of the issues in general seem to come about around holstering which is one of the situations where you're most likely to be "breaking" the rules pointing towards yourself, certainly not ideal.

Reholstering is one of the stronger objective arguments for a safety, but that still assumes the safeties themselves are properly designed.

>That's much better than the opposite problem: forgetting to engage the safety and accidentally discharging.

If you're following the firearm safety rules you're not pointed at anything/anybody you don't wish to destroy so it's a moot point. (yourself included, though at least in that case nobody else was harmed needlessly)

A safety lockout (or lacktherof) shouldn't be a factor in your pointing of a gun at someone and pulling the trigger.

>I just feel like having to toggle a switch before killing a man is the least you can do to avoid accidents.

It's extremely rare for someone who isn't being extremely negligent to be in a position where they could "accidently" kill someone.

Could a safety prevent such an occurrence? It's very well possible and that might be a reason to prefer a firearm with sufficient safeties that increases your comfort.

On the other hand some people decided that they're cautious enough and by in large most people avoid accidents and practice good safety practices to avoid harm should one happen.

There's trade offs either way, but ultimately it's preference.

>What, so [pulling] the trigger automatically disengages the safety?

Correct. There's a few other internal safeties to help ensure it doesn't go off unless someone is pulling the trigger and (hopefully) intending to fire.

It's still drop safe and not going to go off by itself, but if you fire it (and there's a round in the chamber), it's going off.

>As a non-gun-person that seems like an insane design decision

There's certainly tradeoffs. It's simpler and you're not going to accidentally forget to disengage a safety at the worst possible time (when you actually need to be using a gun), but it does increase the risk when improperly handling the firearm which is a risk not everyone is cool with for obvious reasons (and even experienced operators (incl. Law Enforcement being generous, which largely carry Glocks) are human and can make mistakes).

>I gather that having the games installed somewhere outside of steam's /home/ directory was not jiving with flatpak's security model. It took some non-trivial editing (thanks, flatseal) to finally let the Steam flatpak be able to write outside of its own directory and install the games.

I think flatpak could use a built in notification method of some sort to add exceptions to paths it's allowing access to, though I imagine it would still require effort on the application's part which maybe would never happen (especially with steam using its own custom file browser)

>At last check in, I still can't launch CS:Go, because of some backend problem while trying to play the opening movie

I've had no such issue (and it's worth noting the -novid launch option), but regardless valve still treats Linux as a second class platform despite the steam deck which is fairly disappointing.

The issue I do have is that the new overlay will crash cs:go in openGL mode and Vulkan mode has massive stutters.

I'm optimistic CS2 will be better, but to be determined.

>Is it the "people" as a group of singular individuals, or the "people" as a group. I almost wish the founders had set up the same structure that Switzerland had, instead of making it so ambiguous.

Aye, it's pretty astounding how language can be so ambiguous that it can be an issue hundreds of years later.

>Because as is it seems any restriction may be unconstitutional. Why shouldn't felons or those declared to be non compos mentis be specially excepted?

Definitely a conflict point I have, I'm far from well educated enough to know the nuance there, but in many cases that felons for instance lose their voting rights as well (which I don't particularly agree with) so there is somewhat of a standard there of restricting some rights even after they've been released.

I don't think I quite go that far, but there are some people who truly believe that any restriction is unconstitutional vs "shall not be infringed".

Ultimately there's got to be a balance somewhere, but I'd prefer the government have to prove that it can justifiably take away someone's rights, rather than being based on mere suspicion that they may do something in the future based on possibly non-violent past behavior (drug possession charges are often felonies for instance for drugs that many states have decriminalized).

>I personally will probably never own a gun because historically I know I probably would have, at minimum, brandished it out of anger. I value my own freedom, and the safety of others, too much to own a gun. And from what I've read in news articles it seems a bunch of other people should do the same. But they don't. You can try to train morality, but you can't force others to use it.

Aye, there's certainly issues with a lot of people having guns and not everyone is going to morally prudent or safe. (or even if they were 99% of the time, that 1% can turn out quite bad)

Perhaps it is truly is a pipe dream, but often the prospective is that if society were to improve (whatever that truly means in the context of mental health, economic security, morality) violence in general (and relatedly gun violence) would reduce as well and that's truly the root cause of many issues. But that's being fairly optimistic on human behavior.

Personally, I think I'm plenty well suited to handle it, but I'm certain many who aren't feel the same and very much aren't.

>The government acting the way it does is an instance of power corrupting. And the powerful not caring about the imposition others must deal with. It, too, is a balancing act.

In theory it leads to somewhat of an equilibrium between both extremes, but of course nobody want's to find themself on the outer edge of that

>That makes sense. But presumably you don't have to permit the guns you don't carry around.

Generally, it's not the gun that's permitted it's you as an individual.

You're telling the government "hey I have a gun and here's all of my personal information".

Even if you only carry one around it's not a huge leap to assume that more may exist and if confiscation were to happen they know you have at least one (and probably more than one) to seize.

Not to mention said information is stored in databases where the information can (and has been) stolen [1] which may lead to you becoming a more valuable target for theft.

I can legally (but not wisely) carry a firearm in the open in my state, but if I don't want everyone to know about it and "conceal" it I have to tell the government and be put in a database that may get leaked.

>And it's a "well regulated militia", not a free for all

There's plenty of debate over that term (and if it's just some antiquated terminology or not), but it is followed by "the right of the people" (not explicitly just some "militia" for what that's worth).

I'm not in favor of it being a true free-for-all and there's plenty of restrictions on who should be able to have guns which are seemingly reasonable (with appropriate due process), but realistically that only affects those who comply with laws.

>I understand people wanting more rights than they are statutorily entitled to.

I want as many rights as possible for the most amount of people. Of course this one is one of the most contentious given the risk of harm (which should be acknowledged in any honest argument), but in my estimation if you consider it a right (which not everyone does clearly) you should defend it because there's no shortage of governments wishing to remove rights from its people.

>So do I, on other rights

Without going too far down the slippery slope, which other rights are you willing to compromise on with the least generous interpretation?

Or would you rather prefer the strongest interpretation that maintains the most personal protections at the risk of a safety over freedom?

2A aside, I think there's a bunch of rights including speech and privacy rights the government would like to bypass for the supposed sake of perceived safety. After all we have to stop the terrorists and protect children, the ends justify the means.

[1] https://calmatters.org/commentary/2022/12/how-did-confidenti...

>I like to believe I'm an independent thinker, but a big part of my process is to seek out many different points of view and judging which feel well supported and well reasoned.

Ultimately that's the best most people can do short of intensive 'independent' research on most topics which outside of your personal expertise generally isn't entirely possible (even if you have good research skills, there's time limitations.)

>Consensus DOES play a role in my judgement forming. If consensus is easily faked, yikes.

Even prior to widespread AI tools this has been a strong method in information warfare, that's why it's detrimental to not show dislikes/downvotes in rating systems, it can make a far greater consensus appear to exist where there is far more disagreement among a topic.

As far as I'm concerned, the removal of those metrics are to enforce that specific purpose.

Who audits the auditors?

As far as I know mpv is descended from mplayer and still plays a pretty big part in the media player landscape these days.

If you have access to an Education edition key it's about as close as you can get legitimately to Enterprise.

I dare to say it's almost pleasant to use after a few Group policy tweaks (disable web search , telemetry, and widgets). No preinstalled Candy Crush either. Can run a local account without too much hassle but the Microsoft store is far more aggressive to make you login in 11 than 10 even for Education.

Honestly it's the only thing keeping me on Windows, but my laptop came with the standard edition of 11 with loads of preinstalled crapware that persists after a Windows reset and I was about ready to throw it out the window.

>I'm sure I could tell them to kick rocks, and they would have to write up a subpoena but there's no reason to do that

Would they have the right to subpoena you though? Over mere suspicion that they think a vehicle at some point drove a certain direction?

Sure if it was a case involving me personally I'd probably be cooperative, but I don't fancy the idea of just letting LEOs just waltz into my property to "just to take a look"

Yep, a large aspect of flashcards when studying or the occasions when in college they allow you to bring notes to exams involves the aspect of personally curating the material and thinking about it during the process.

Perhaps the gpt can find truly useful information, but if you don't know why it's useful you're just filling up your memory with material you don't know how to utilize well.

You can use hand signals, but obviously that's far from ideal.

Feigned certainty is often a indication of the opposite. In many cases people just absorb someone else's opinion on topics just in an effort to feel informed.

I'm not going to say I'm never guilty of it myself, but often asking even for the slightest bit of further explanation collapses that or otherwise just leads to repetition.

Twitch's original purpose was splintering off the gaming section of justin.tv (a general streaming site) onto a separate website specifically for gaming content.

They never refocused on gaming as that was the entire focus of the site's creation. During the early days any non-gaming content was strictly prohibited on Twitch.

For a while justin.tv and twitch coexisted, with justin.tv for general content such as "social streams" (equivalent to "Just Chatting" on modern day Twitch) and largely streams of copyrighted content such as tv shows (an obvious liability).

Prior to Amazon purchasing Twitch, justin.tv was shut down and a lot of the general "social" content started becoming allowable on Twitch over time.

>The US military itself uses Tor. They don't want to ban it

That's not really any reassurance in the long term, if they find a better/different solution that goes out the window.

>He always prepares a couple of questions in case the conversation stalls

A lot of people underestimate how much effort it takes to keep a relatively smooth flowing conversation for a matter of hours. Ultimately if the words are flowing the host is doing a good job.

In many cases for some of the more controversial guests Lex adds some disclaimers at the beginning, but it's not the host's job to argue every single statement.

>I don't think the answer here is to loudly proclaim that _all_ registries of persons are a terrible idea.

Ultimately there has to be a record somewhere ensuring you're eligible to have a firearm (at the very least if you're operating on the common standard that felons don't have the right to have firearms), but past that you're just adding extra metadata which can be either stolen or given away "unintentionally".

If you're onboard with permit-less carry ("Constitutional Carry") there's no additional metadata needed.

The less data you have the less data there is to lose. (and it will get lost)

>We do need to ensure that the data is being handled appropriately which it absolutely is not being on any level. We need accountability and for that to occur we need an engaged and educated population.

Certainly need accountability, but once you've failed you can't put genie back into the bottle.

Yeah I'm extra upset about this because I would have chosen TOTP if I was given the option, but only sms authentication was available for 2FA for the longest time (until it became such a big issue with account takeovers including jack's I believe that they had no choice but to change that)

Doug has his personal biases (as does everyone else), but does make an decent effort to be neutral (within his capabilities) while hitting his main points and remaining entertaining.

This [1] is a fairly great conversation with him which covers a lot of topics including the incentives [2] many other YouTubers/Car Journalists have (from getting flown out to launch events and the general pressures to not lose access to press cars by being too negative in a review)

That said, while I trust Doug far more than many reviewers he still has many relationships with car dealerships, often gets access to preproduction cars that he can't drive yet (but almost always does a full review when he can), and does have a car auction business so there's still room for that to have an effect on his judgement even if he's trying otherwise.

[1] https://youtu.be/pFGh-YqHT4Y [2] https://youtu.be/pFGh-YqHT4Y?t=5155

>So, given that, what's the ethical action

Sometimes the winning move is not to play, there's good arguments for supporting the humanitarian funds, but I disagree that foreign civilians should directly fund someone else's military (and the weapons used to kill others).

Of course I'd rather there not be a war at all and I'm a strong proponent of self-defense (I'm not Ukrainian however and Russia isn't directly attacking me currently), but I don't think it's ever ethical (from a principled standpoint) to personally (as a civilian) fund the killing of others (even if it's an unfortunate reality that can't be avoided).

If my elected government is concerned about the interest of my country enough that it believes it is beneficial to ensure the safety/sovereignty of my country (and/or related allies) to support Ukraine's military is an entirely different situation than asking ordinary people to directly finance weapons that will likely be used to kill (even if in self defense from another invading country).

All of that is assuming the weapons remain in the "right" hands as well. Personally I would feel bad if a weapon I helped fund got taken by the opposing soldiers and used to kill people from the side I were intending to help defend. The chances of ever finding out about something like that happening directly is slim, but it's a distinct possibility.

tl;dr I think it's improper to delegate military funding decisions (and potential consequences) onto normal civilians for something that should be at a greater military / governmental level.

I'm fairly certain that the T430 got a bios update for Spectre, there's Intel microcode updates that can be loaded at boot, and other general mitigations for CPU vulnerabilities in the Linux kernel as well.

Nothing's impossible, but it would have to be a pretty targeted attack to exploit the CPU.

That said it's still a good idea keeping stuff behind a VPN if you don't need to share stuff publicly with the entire internet.

While not perfect yet (it's still a relatively young project) it works as good or better than pulse in most general usage scenarios and avoids a lot of nonsense that you used to have to go through with using jack audio in tandem with pulse as well.

For the most part it works out of the box with good latency without extra configuration and provides good routing options as well for more advanced usage.

It's really easy to make up justifications for things with enough data.

Many ISPs who implemented low data caps on their services justified it as reasonable because "most people don't use more data than this" which while probably true, also relates to their being punishment for using more data.

Similar arguments can be made for most defaults "well the vast majority doesn't change it so..." while ignoring that those who go outside of the defaults value it highly and are more likely to be unhappy about the lack of options while their opinions get overshadowed by people who don't know there was an option in the first place.

I'm optimistic on the progress that has been made, but its arguable that many repair programs are hedging their bets to slow down or actually kill proper right to repair legislation.

"We don't need right to repair, we already have programs in place voluntarily"

Which is all fine and good, but in many cases leaves out important components that still can't be obtained or bundles them with unnecessary components in a non-economical way.

Add the idea that has been floated over the years into making law enforcement officers a protected class as well and it's not a large leap to see how such seemingly well-intentioned things can be abused by the state.

They deliberately gray out and disable the button that works for every other application if I recall correctly.

This is one of my bigger issues with Flathub that still keeps me uncomfortable.

I've been adopting flatpaks a fair bit lately but something doesn't sit right that there's not an obvious way (At least in most front ends) to know:

1) Who the packager is.

2) Is the flatpak officially sanctioned by the developer of the software?

2.5) If not, how do I know that it was packaged correctly? Was the build from a clean source?

3) Is it really the latest version? (or is the potential non-official packager perhaps lagging behind the official release)

Perhaps you can dig further into GitHub and get the information, but it's not blatantly obvious at a glance.