I was also with a provider that didn’t offer API access for the longest time. When they then increased prices, I switched, now paying a third of their asking price per year at a very good provider.

I guess migrating is difficult if the provider doesn’t offer a mechanism to either dump the DNS to a file or perform a zone transfer (the later being part of the standard).

Can only recommend INWX for domains, though my personal requirements aren’t the highest.

A lot of paid cert providers were not so great before LE or the spotlight on the issue; it was more of a scheme to extract money from operators who couldn’t afford to not offer TLS / SSL. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=647959 was a famous post that made fun of / criticized the system before LE. This hurt security, and if not free, LE wouldn’t have worked.

Also wildcard certificates are more difficult to do automated with let’s encrypt.

They are trivial with a non-garbage domain provider.

If you want EV certificates (where the cert company actually calls you up and verifies you’re the company you claim to be) you also need to go the paid route

The process however isn’t as secure as one might think: https://cyberscoop.com/easy-fake-extended-validation-certificates-research-shows/

In my experience trustworthyness of certs is not an issue with LE. I sometimes check websites certs and of I see they’re LE I’m more like “Good for them”

Basically, am LE cert says “we were able to verify that the operator of this service you’re attempting to use controls (parts of) the domain it claims to be part of”. Nothing more or less. Which in most cases is enough so that you can secure the connection. It’s possibly even a stronger guarantee than some sketchy cert providers provided in the past which was like “we were able to verify that someone sent us money”.

By how the protocol is structured, it’s impossible for the address a downloader sees to know what the packet they forward actually contains, so they’re just taking the role of an ISP. Also, they don’t know the original source IP.

This would also be fairly unintrusive, but could add a few false positives.

If this was the case, we’d have a whole bigger problem on our hands.

Even considering the birthday problem, the chance for such collisions is astronomically small. Especially if you combine it with the file size that you always have anyways.

In fact I’d guess that sites like these already do exactly that in order to avoid hosting duplicates (if not handled at the file system level).

Not exactly a stealthy name

Probably both - however I think it’s not unreasonable to assume that organizations as mentioned in the article at least have the Chinese government’s blessing, if they’re not directly controlled by it. So even if the fentanyl itself is not coming from outside the states, the precursors from which it can be made with little effort are.

That and I guess some gangs make it somewhere else and then import it, but that’s another story.

Also technically, I think there’s legal fentanyl being produced in the states, but that’s usually not what’s meant in the discussion.

Asking for a friend

The team also procured secondary ingredients used to process the essential precursors, as well as basic equipment – giving it everything needed to produce fentanyl.

The core precursors Reuters bought would have yielded enough fentanyl powder to make at least 3 million tablets, with a potential street value of $3 million – a conservative estimate based on prices cited by U.S. law enforcement agencies in published reports over the past six months.

The total cost of the chemicals and equipment Reuters purchased, paid mainly in Bitcoin: $3,607.18.

Turning these precursors into fentanyl would have required just modest lab skills and a basic grasp of chemistry. One Mexican fentanyl cook who dropped out of school at age 12 told Reuters he learned the trade as an apprentice at an illegal lab.

“It’s like making chicken soup,” said the cook, an independent producer based in the cartel stronghold of Sinaloa state. “It’s mega-easy making that drug.”

Actually one block in the article

A web browser? There goes my career as a drug lord

My point was that it’s irrelevant if the whole company knows git. We’re a Microsoft shop and a lot of people don’t even use computers at our company (or only sparingly as they work in manufacturing). And we also have a subset of people who work with git (me kind of included).

And no our janitor can’t use AD. Even though our whole company “uses” Microsoft Windows

The answer to this 100% irrelevant question is no

Nice until you’re at a hotspot that blocks most ports but the most common ones.

I use HTTPS for all stuff, that has given me the best results overall. But of course, you can offer multiple options simultaneously

Also game servers because they’re generally very easy to host at home, and due to generally high RAM and storage needs paying for hosting can be quite pricey.

Really?

I thought this was more the case with flexible providers like DigitalOcean. My current provider charges 5,36€ per month for 4 cores (though I assume this corresponds rather to 2 SMT-enabled cores), 6 GB of RAM and a 400 GB SSD. It offers better latency for most players (obviously not for myself) and in most cases has been sufficient regarding performance.

Ah, ACLs, had the pleasure of working with these again last weeks.

It gets really curious when even the Arch wiki doesn’t really know what’s going on (talking about mask and effective permissions):

The factual accuracy of this article or section is disputed.

Reason: The original note about the --mask option (which was taken from setfacl(1)) was determined as inaccurate, but the new note does not seem correct either. See the talk page for details.

From trying, I can confirm that the info presented further down is wrong.

Once you read what it actually does and why it’s the way it is, it makes more sense - not that I remember it now - but at least there was a coherent design decision behind it

You’re not supposed to “sudo everything” though. It’s mostly for changing the system configuration (editing config files in /etc/, running your system package manager etc.). It shouldn’t be a “oh, I got a permission error, better sudo the same command again olol”

Maybe not the best acronym, with Node Package Manager around