r00ty

I’d say the ideal situation is that tools are developed library first, then cli or gui as preferred allowing others to pick up the slack and make the other tool (or tools) using the functions in the library.

One of the reasons automation is so much easier on linux than windows is because there are many more cli tools to do things. On windows many tools are gui first and cannot easily be automated.

That’s weird. Whenever I’ve had gpu drivers fail the environment didn’t come up and I would be left at a terminal.

But, they shouldn’t need rescue. The issue is no nvidia driver, but you can still login from the text terminals. Ctrl + Alt + F3, F4 etc etc. In fact when the window environment fails to load it should drop back to terminal.

I have a 3080, so 590 is fine for me. But, I’m sure the legacy one is a dkms. But the process of installing that should be done as part of the install. E.g. you install, reboot

What does lspci -k show for the card in terms of Kernel driver in use, and kernel modules? Also what does dkms status say?

If the module is installed and showing in dkms status and showing as used in lspci -k, it should be available for desktop environments.

I do agree in terms of effort when things go wrong though. I remember when I was a lot younger and I had no problems just sitting in front of my keyboard finding whatever the latest problem is. Now, I want to be doing things with my PC.

But, a bit of debugging might be worthwhile before doing a new installation.

Did you also uninstall all of the components of the new driver as per the arch site?

https://archlinux.org/news/nvidia-590-driver-drops-pascal-support-main-packages-switch-to-open-kernel-modules/

Otherwise it’s investigate from the tty as to what driver, if any is in use for the gpu pci device.

Are you sure it was dot pitch and not dot clock?

Dot pitch on a crt might make the image look bad (trying to draw onto the shadow mask) but I doubt it would damage it.

Setting an invalid dot clock could damage some crts. But most of the modern (read from mid 90s on) would just go to the power save mode when they got a clock they couldn’t use. The warning did still remain on the xfree86 configuration guides though.

Showing my age perhaps.

More than 51 years if there’s one of those updates that will randomly decide to overwrite the UEFI removing your bootloader entirely :P

On the one-hand I think it would be similar to how usenet works now for binaries. That is, once notified under DMCA (for the USA) and likely similar laws in other western countries you’re duty bound to remove it.

I don’t know if there would be other problems with hosting files when you don’t know what they are. Also in terms of defence against DMCA, how would the original file uploader defend against it when you can’t know what the file is without the key. Person A reports file xyz as infringing their copyright, Uploader B says it doesn’t. Normally you could re-instate it and let the two parties fight it out in court. But, I wonder how it would play out when you hosting the file don’t even know what it is.

I’m really not sure how it would really stack up against copyright law in general and more specifically laws for truly illegal content (e.g. CSAM), since you could be hosting that and never know.

Seems a bit more of a risky venture to me and more a question for an actually qualified legal advisor I’m afraid.

I’ve said this before. The UK online safety act if they enforce it hard against fediverse instances, it will be the end of federation, for UK users without a VPN at least. Because it puts too much on the shoulders of small site operators.

In this case though, the exception most countries have for site operators to avoid being responsible for their user’s posts is usually reliant on action being taken when content on your site is reported to you. There isn’t really an exception for saying “Umm, wasn’t from my site mate. Go follow the trail and get the original guy”. The argument will be, the site you control has the content, remove it.

In the UK in the 1990s there was a court case [1] that might even form the part of the case law behind the publisher exception. In that case the claimant stated that the ISP was alerted to forged usenet articles (usenet was pretty much a good analogue for modern federated content) that he believed defamed him. They did not remove the articles (presumably because they did not originate on their usenet server, by their users I am not sure). He sued them and the court ruled in his favour. There’s more nuance, but the take away is pretty much what we got in the law created later.

Since then we have enacted the Defamation Act 2013 [2], which has section 5 that gives SOME exemption to operators of websites that allow posts by third parties (that pretty much covers the fediverse). That makes it clear that if the claimant cannot identify the user (which would be the case for 99% of threadiverse users), and if you are informed about the content and do not take action, then you may be held accountable for the defamation. Now that just means that if they tell you X post is defamatory or should be removed for another legal reason, if you refuse to do so in a reasonable time period, then you can be held responsible and treated as the publisher of that message. So if it were to breach some law, they could sue you for it as if you posted it yourself. Which is kinda why I’d say just remove it if there’s any doubt at all. I’m not a legal expert, but that’s how I read the act.

I’m not sure how it works elsewhere. I live in the UK. But generally the rules are somewhat similar.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_v_Demon_Internet_Service [2] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/section/5

Well, legally there’s no reason to comply. At the same time I personally have no skin in the game and deleting the account locally won’t do much (unless you purge their content too).

So, here’s what I would do. I would comply (you should be able to delete the local instance of that account). But I’d also reply pointing out that it’s a mirror of the real account hosted at lea.pet and their real beef is with them, and should that user interact with or generate content pushed to you, the local copy would be re-created.

Keep a copy of the email you send (because it’s highly likely a human doesn’t monitor that mailbox) and then move on with your life. If a real person then wants to complain you can just forward the email you sent and tell them the same still applies.

It’s automated and the email indicates as such.

That should all be covered in the unit tests.

No. That’s just because the thread simulating your consciousness has leaked too much memory. So when you sleep the thread saves important parts of the memory map and terminates and a new one is started with an empty memory map ready for a new “day” .

Yes. I host a vpn at my house. Then vpn in on fire stick/laptop etc. No problems to date.

We’d also be entirely unaware of reboots. Our reality would just resume from the last save point and we’d just move on like nothing happened.

How do you know? Just because the repository is hosted outside of our space-time. Doesn’t mean it’s not an open source repository.

For sure entirely defederating would be hard right now. But you’re could selectively block communities on your own instance. As I say if they did do something so heinous others would pick up the communities and it would be easier.

On the one hand one instance having so many users is not ideal. If the mods/admins there go wild you can simply move, and organically the communities hosted there would appear elsewhere.

So in real terms any action they hypothetically could take can realistically be countered.

Here you go

#include <iostream>
#include <csignal>
#include <unistd.h>

void sigusr1_handler(int signal)
{
	std::cout << "Signal USR1" << std::endl;
}

int main()
{
	std::cout << "Installed handler for USR1" << std::endl;
	std::signal(SIGUSR1, sigusr1_handler);
	while (1 == 1)
	{
		usleep(5000000);	// 5 seconds
		std::cout << "Waiting for signal" << std::endl;
	}
}

That will help you read at least one of them.

I blocked the entire ASN for Meta, because they were downright dirty with their scraping. No gradual crawling, fakes UAs, random addresses across a large number of subnets.

They weren’t the only ones either. The AI scraping heist is the new goldrush.