guitars are real

Open source is just another commons, and companies have a way of uncontrollably exploiting common resources until they collapse.

In the case of open source, it’s healthy in the sense that money is flowing, we have companies sponsoring projects, tons of code is available for inspection and reuse, etc. Very nice. But if you go back to the original concepts of free software, in many cases we struggle with actually exercising the four freedoms. Red Hat has engineered an EULA that basically lets them ban practices that had been thought protected by the GPL for at least a generation, and so on and so forth. So is the open source community healthy or dying? Doesn’t the answer to that depend on your priorities?

I think it would make a lot of sense to try to create an economic model that can fund open source software development without relying on corporate injections of cash. It’s not that they don’t pay for it ever, they just pay for it to the bare minimum extent. IE, the heartbleed fiasco – tons of companies were freeloading off one guy and like half the Internet’s security got fucked for it. Imagine if OpenSSL had had some kind of economic support structure in place to allow for, uh, more than one guy to manage the encryption library for like half the Internet before something insanely stupid and predictable like that happened. Well, we can never have that with corporate-controlled open source.

Since CRF settings aren’t that useful for hitting a specified filesize, you can use the following equation to calculate the bitrate needed to encode a video of a given runtime at a given file size

• s = length of video file in seconds
• t = target size in gigabytes
• b = target bitrate in kilobit/s

b = (t*8*10^6)/s

ie, my copy of Serenity is 01:58:55 long, which is 7135 seconds (see https://www.calculateme.com/time/hours-minutes-seconds/to-seconds), I want it to be 2.5gb, my equation is

b = (2.5*8*10^6)/7135 = 2803 kbit/s

You can use any tool, handbrake, ffmpeg, whatever, any codec, and this equation will tell you the average bitrate needed to hit that file size. You would use “vbr” encoding mode instead of crf. I’d recommend enabling 2-pass for x264, not sure if this would be needed/is available for x265 as I’m a bit of a stick in the mud re: video codecs.

Couple notes, I’m using SI units (powers of 10 instead of powers of 2) for the conversion, and am converting from bytes to bits as this is a more common unit to represent bitrates. If your software uses different units for the bitrate for some reason, or you prefer representing file sizes using gibibytes/etc then you’ll need to rewrite the equation accordingly

policing a space/securing it for industry costs. They didn’t change the maps just to feel good about themselves, this is only the first step to opening these spaces up for exploitation.

If nothing else, they need a presence to help the companies quash unionization efforts on the mining rigs, don’t they? And that costs.

I don’t know that I justified it, just pointed out a basic historical truth about industrialization. With a shred of historical context it’s trivial to turn the conversation from “ew China evil” to “is it possible to industrialize without this shit?” which is a question anybody should have been asking from the very beginning.

At the end of the day, lambasting China for doing all the things industrializing nations have always done, without offering a concretely better, alternative path for industrialization, and simultaneously demanding they achieve a similar level of development as the West without doing anything the West did to get there, is honestly just pointless. The West imposed a competitive market system based on the preposterous violence of industrial production on the rest of the world, and are now going to be collectively hoisted by our own petards over the next few decades.

If we wanted them to industrialize without shit like ethnic homogenization/genocide/systematic exploitation of labor/everything else, we might have tried blazing a path to economic development that wasn’t based on those things.

For the record, though, any nation-state that got big did all of that. That is literally what industrialization has more or less always looked like. The US used to run sweatshops and disappear/murder activists of any kind, especially the ones who pushed back against the pennies-an-hour sweatshops. It wasn’t until the 20th century that US courts even started reading the First Amendment to mean the government had an obligation to not fuck you up just for your political beliefs (see this title since that’s a larger historical argument than can fit on Lemmy).

You don’t get social freedom and rights in an industrial society until it hits a very high point of development. This has been true of more or less anywhere.

While we could argue China should have looked for a better way to develop, the United States also helped create an international system in the middle of the 20th century where the only real option was to aggressively industrialize in an even worse way than the US did, or just be subject to outright neocolonialism (and then develop your industry also in a bad way, also likely without rights, and then not have a rounded enough economy to do anything other than be exploited by richer countries), and then, when China decided to just take a heavy state-led path that employed capitalism and tools of standard industrial nation-building to set themselves up as a powerful capitalist nation-state, like they were “supposed” to, Western countries, the US in particular, bought in hard and financed everything they’re now recoiling against.

China’s great sin, in this context (and while I’m being slightly sarcastic there, sure, the way they’re industrializing/running shit is bad), was choosing to use their enormous land-mass, resource base, and population to not just be on the very bottom. If America/the West had wanted to see the world industrialize better and more humanely, they should have tried at literally any point to help the world industrialize better and more humanely. At this point, it’s a little absurd for Westerners to complain a situation they created and financed extensively for decades.

I did some reading and while it’s true that the continued existence of the US federal government is a large collection of dick moves forming one gigantic meta-dick move, this is actually pretty straightforward. The UN Convention on the Law of the Seas defines a range of distances from the seashore where a state can claim the seafloor/minerals etc as its own; everything past that is the high seas. The US hadn’t previously maxed out its claims, so there was wiggle room under UNCLOS to expand said claims.

Now, why would they bother, why is it suddenly worth the extra administrative cost of claiming even deeper offshore waters, that’s an interesting question. I’d say it’s a good indicator of the increasing cost and difficulty of extracting natural resources (likely technology has brought the cost down some, too), pushing nation-states to pursue ever more exotic and costly extraction methods, but overall this doesn’t seem that significant (we all already knew that was a trend, that’s why we’re all on this community).

The push to expand territories is a troubling one, because sure, this is a legally uncontroversial move, but if expanding territories is at this point our best option for propping up the system, we’re in for another era of wars. But we all knew that already.

According to the State Dept announcement, the new lines were determined by the Extended Continental Shelf Task Force, which is a cross-agency task force representing 14 different federal agencies. More likely, the expanded areas have a variety of resources that would be of interest to US industries.

Hi, sorry I just saw this. “SFF” is short for “small form factor.” It’s just industry jargon for “a small PC.” They tend to be designed to use less power which makes them a good fit for home servers. Pretty much any line of PC sold to businesses, like Dell Optiplex or HP EliteDesk, will have small form factor variants.

Shout out for ODROID, their product revision cycles take too long (lmao why are they still selling a 32-bit chip that was an iffy investment back in 2013), but when they drop new stuff, it tends to be great.

deleted by creator

Bonus: there is a literally endless supply of used x86 SFF hardware from large institutions, so unlike SBC’s, there’s no special, weird supply chain managed by an English educational nonprofit that could just suddenly decide to not sell to the public for years at a time.

I’m not saying you should care too much about the TOS, I just found it an interesting question.

They never actually stopped making offline MP3 players, they just went out of style.

Not that you should buy off Amazon, just to give you an idea – https://www.amazon.com/touchscreen-mp3-player/s?k=touchscreen+mp3+player

Tons of name-brand options from days of yore, too, that weren’t just iPods. RockBox supports a pretty good selection if you need some model numbers to look up: https://www.rockbox.org/

I recall people liked their Archos players a lot, I had a few Sansas and Creatives over the years, they were pretty alright.

Well it’s an interesting question. From Hulu’s TOS:

a. License. Within the United States and subject to the terms and conditions in this Agreement, we grant you a limited, personal use, non-transferable, non-assignable, revocable, non-exclusive and non-sublicensable right to do the following:

Install and make non-commercial, personal use of the Services; and stream or temporarily download copyrighted materials, including but not limited to movies, television shows, other entertainment or informational programming, trailers, bonus materials, images, and artwork (collectively, the “Content”) that are available to you from the Services.

This is a license agreement and not an agreement for sale or assignment of any rights in the Content or the Services. The purchase of a license to stream or temporarily download any Content does not create an ownership interest in such Content.

While I’m not a lawyer, I’m gonna guess the lines about a revocable license are intended to cover this. Sites like Hulu rotate their content out, which I’m gonna guess means your license to view their content only extends to what’s in their library at that time. Under fair use, you might be able to argue that you can create a backup copy for your own viewing – it does say “temporarily download,” but doesn’t say you have to download it from them – but legally you’d probably be obligated to delete your copy once Hulu gets rid of it regardless.

Also, the TOS does specify that circumventing their copy protection is a TOS violation. While the DMCA grants certain exceptions to the copy-protection rule for fair use, I don’t think it requires Hulu to continue to serve you content or not revoke your license if you break their TOS. Kinda reminds me of Red Hat’s use of TOS to enforce terms that go above and beyond the GPL. They can’t exactly stop you 100%, but they can refuse to do business with you, which makes it a lot harder.

In five years, they’ll be telling us it’s stealing not to go see the latest marvel movie.

Okay, but what did you want the bereaved mom to say to the media, “thanks Israel for murdering my kid because of what someone else did!”?

Encrypting your disk only provides at-rest protection, meaning there are entire swathes of physical attacks it provides zero protection against. Tons of stuff a malicious actor can do during runtime with physical access that you’d never notice. it quite literally only protects against thugs smashing your door in and physically walking away with the disk.

So if you’ve painted yourself into a corner with a baby’s first config, what you can do to step up your level of data protection (until you can redo your setup properly) is creating an encrypted filesystem or filesystem image (use fallocate to create a large empty file, then connect it to a loopback device, encrypt with LUKS, and use it as a virtual filesystem), rsync your data directory to it, and then unlock/mount it at boot under the directory where Nextcloud is configured to store your data. It’s god-awful, but this should be more or less transparent to Nextcloud if you do it right, and then at least your data directory gets at-rest encryption, and tbqh if someone is smash and grabbing your hard drive they are probably more interested in your data than they are your OS config.

I wouldn’t say this is an acceptable or preferable alternative to FDE, but it sounds like you’re still figuring out the best ways to set these things up, and this will get you more protection than none. But, realistically, you should probably not worry about it too much and should think about the security of your setup as a learning exercise/study in best practices.

or maybe it’s trying to highlight that it’s also secure?

The most useful philosophy I’ve come across is “make the OS instance disposable.” That means an almost backups-first approach. Everything of importance to me is thoroughly backed up so once main box goes kaput, I just have to pull the most recent copy of the dataset and provision it on a new OS, maybe new hardware if needed. These days, it’s not that difficult. Docker makes scripting backups easy as pie. You write your docker-compose so all config and program state lives in a single directory. Back up the directory, and all you need to get up and running again with your services is access to Docker Hub to fetch the application code.

Some downsides with this approach (Docker’s security model sorta assumes you can secure/segment your home network better than most people are actually able to), but honestly, for throwing up a small local service quickly it’s kind of fantastic. Also, if you decide to move away from Docker the experience will give you insight into what amounts to program state for the applications you use which will make doing the same thing without Docker that much easier.

Misinformation is a numbers game. For every 10 people that see the misinfo, only maybe 1 or 2 will ever see the followup proving whatever the misinformation was was in fact misinformation. And out of those 2, half will assume the followup is itself misinformation and have their belief in the propaganda reinforced. Out of the 8 who will never see the correction, maybe two will reject it, four won’t really know what to think (itself a useful propaganda outcome), and maybe two will accept it.

Concerted efforts to combat misinformation can help, maybe nowadays the number of people who see the followup is closer to 3 or 4, but it’s the same basic dynamics behind the Gish Gallop, but on an industrial scale. Making up bullshit is easy, analyzing and explaining why it’s bullshit on average takes longer than spewing out some new piece of bullshit.