The fact that you’ve made it impossible to roll an 8 by replacing 2d4 with 1d6+1 might impact the game just a bit. Also with 2d4 a 5 is 4x as likely (1+4, 2+3, 3+2, 4+1) as a 2 (1+1) or 8 (4+4); with 1d6+1 all outcomes from 2 to 7 are equally likely, so you’re far more likely to get a critical hit or critical miss (if the game has that sort of thing, and you adjust it for the reduced range).
Another player who was at the table during the incident sent me this meme after the problem player in question (they had a history) left the group chat....
I believe the point was that it didn’t fit the setting for the main characters of a typical fantasy plot—not being well-suited to traveling significant distances in rough terrain, among other things—not that they wouldn’t have the basic tech. You don’t see many active-duty soldiers or mercenaries fighting in wheelchairs and it seems likely the same considerations would apply to adventurers. You can come up with settings where it isn’t totally implausible, but it will require some careful thought and ingenuity.
They ruled that people acting together have all the same rights that they would have acting individually, and that preventing someone from spending money on producing and promoting their speech effectively prevents them from being heard. Which are both perfectly true, common-sense statements.
If there’s no skill involved, why play blackjack? If you want randomness you should just go buy lottery tickets. They’re both biased against you, but at least when you fail to win the lottery you’ll know some of your losses went towards education.
Except it’s not even that indirect. The government of Texas invented this novel class of private liability, and their courts are the ones enforcing it. That’s the same as banning it themselves, and blatantly unconstitutional.
I’m a bit surprised they didn’t implement this as a tax. That would be just as bad, but the federal government has a long history of imposing punitive taxes on things they aren’t allowed to ban; it would have been harder to fight it that way without forcing an overhaul of the entire tax system… and politicians are so very fond of special-purpose taxes and credits.
You’re not wrong… but as you said, those are external costs. While it’s fine to wish for a simpler, more equitable system, given that the prices are mostly the same no matter how you pay, wouldn’t you rather be part of the group receiving the benefits? Paying with cash or check or a non-reward card is leaving money on the table. The cost of handling cash and checks isn’t necessarily any lower than credit card processing fees and people don’t have much tolerance for strange new forms of payment, which leaves merchants without much leverage to push back against rules which prevent them from passing on the higher costs of the reward cards to those using them.
I’ve seen “cash discounts” in many places but that’s a bit of a false economy as cash can cost just as much to handle as an average credit card in the form of security and “shrinkage”. I’ve never seen a business charge a higher rate based on what kind of card you use, which is what it would take to have an impact on the rewards system.
A few days ago I sent a GDPR request to some company to delete my personal data. They said to install their app and send a ticket from the app. The email was sent from the email address to which the account is registered. Is this even legal?
If you can read emails sent to a given address, and send replies from that address, it basically is your email address for all practical purposes no matter who was meant to be using the account. This is not necessarily a good thing and better end-to-end security would be nice but it is what it is. Odds are the app itself would let anyone change the password and log in provided they can read the emails, unless it’s using some form of 2FA.
Hi all home network administrators :) Haven’t posted anything here since June, when I told you about Gatekeeper 1.1.0. Back then it was a pretty bare-bones (and maybe slightly buggy) DNS + DHCP server with a web UI with a list of LAN clients. Back at 1.1.0 Gatekeeper didn’t even configure your LAN interface or set up NAT...
So you’re not remapping the source ports to be unique? There’s no mechanism to avoid collisions when multiple clients use the same source port? Full Cone NAT implies that you have to remember the mapping (potentially indefinitely—if you ever reassign a given external IP:port combination to a different internal IP or port after it’s been used you’re not implementing Full Cone NAT), but not that the internal and external ports need to be identical. It would generally only be used when you have a large enough pool of external IP addresses available to assign a unique external IP:port for every internal IP:port. Which usually implies a unique external IP for each internal IP, as you can’t restrict the number of unique ports used by each client. This is why most routers only implement Symmetric NAT.
(If you do have sufficient external IPs the Linux kernel can do Full Cone NAT by translating only the IP addresses and not the ports, via SNAT/DNAT prefix mapping. The part it lacks, for very practical reasons, is support for attempting to create permanent unique mappings from a larger number of unconstrained internal IP:port combinations to a smaller number of external ones.)
I’m fairly certain that last one is UB in C. The result of an assignment operator is not an lvalue, and even if it were it’s UB (at least in C99) to modify the stored value of an object more than once between two adjacent sequence points. It might work in C++, though.
The more users spread out into smaller, more easily censored instances, the more the remaining fragmented bits of the Lemmy ecosystem still talking to each other will turn into echo chambers full of groupthink. This low threshold for defederation is the Fediverse’s greatest weakness. Sure, it’s possible to work around it—but how many separate Lemmy accounts are users expected to create? Even if you have accounts on every instance of note you’d need to manually cross-post messages to each balkanized server and their comment sections wouldn’t be shared—exactly the sort of thing federation was meant to avoid.
Email, another federated system, has this same weakness. It’s why it’s increasingly difficult to run your own (outgoing) email server which other systems will accept messages from without going through a well-known third party like Google. Especially when trying to push content to a large audience (e.g. mailing lists), which happens to be Lemmy’s core function.
“Off topic” is a legitimate reason to downvote a post or comment, even one made respectfully and in good faith.
I do sometimes wish more sites had adopted something like the system Slashdot used, with multiple categories of up or down votes (insightful, informative, off-topic, flamebait, etc.) which users could weight according to their own preferences. The simplistic “either up, down, or neutral” model is a rather blunt instrument.
It doesn’t make you anonymous. Torrent protocol wasn’t designed with anonymity in mind and there are a million ways you’re going to leak your actual IP address....
It is not true that every node is an exit node in I2P. The I2P protocol does not officially have exit nodes—all I2P communication terminates at some node within the I2P network, encrypted end-to-end. It is possible to run a local proxy server and make it accessible to other users as an I2P service, creating an “exit node” of sorts, but this is something that must be set up deliberately; it’s not the default or recommended configuration. Users would need to select a specific I2P proxy service (exit node) to forward non-I2P traffic through and configure their browser (or other network-based programs) to use it.
First, let’s start with the basics. An exit node is a node which interfaces between the encrypted network (I2P or Tor) and the regular Internet. A user attempting to access a regular Internet site over I2P or Tor would route their traffic through the encrypted network to an exit node, which then sends the request over the Internet without the I2P/Tor encryption. Responses follow the reverse path back to the user. Nodes which only establish encrypted connections to other I2P or Tor nodes, including ones used for internal (onion) routing, are not exit nodes.
Both I2P and Tor support the creation of services hosted directly through the encrypted network. In Tor these are referred to as onion services and are accessed through .onion hostnames. In I2P these internal services (.i2p or *.b32) are the only kind of service the protocol directly supports—though you can configure a specific I2P service linked to a HTTP/HTTPS proxy to handle non-I2P URLs in the client configuration. There are only a few such proxy services as this is not how I2P is primarily intended to be used.
Tor, by contrast, has built-in support for exit nodes. Routing traffic anonymously from Tor users to the Internet is the original model for the Tor network; onion services were added later. There is no need to choose an exit node in Tor—the system maintains a list and picks one automatically. Becoming a Tor exit node is a simple matter of enabling an option in the settings, whereas in I2P you would need to manually configure a proxy server, inform others about it, and have them adjust their proxy configuration to use it.
If you set up an I2P node and do not go out of your way to expose a HTTP/HTTPS proxy as an I2P service then no traffic from the I2P network can be routed to non-I2P destinations via your node. This is equivalent to running a Tor internal, non-exit node, possibly hosting one or more onion services.
What “increased risks as far as csam”? You’re not hosting any yourself, encrypted or otherwise. You have no access to any data being routed through your node, as it’s encrypted end-to-end and your node is not one of the endpoints. If someone did use I2P or Tor to access CSAM and your node was randomly selected as one of the intermediate onion routers there is no reason for you to have any greater liability for it than any of the ISPs who are also carrying the same traffic without being able to inspect the contents. (Which would be equally true for CSAM shared over HTTPS—I2P & Tor grant anonymity but any standard password-protected web server with TLS would obscure the content itself from prying eyes.)
Not the GP but I also use tmux (or screen in a pinch) for almost any SSH session, if only as insurance against dropped connections. I occasionally use it for local terminals if there is a chance I might want a command to outlive the current graphical session or migrate to SSH later.
Occasionally it’s nice to be able to control the session from the command line, e.g. splitting a window from a script. I’ve also noticed that wrapping a program in tmux can avoid slowdowns when a command generates a lot of output, depending on the terminal emulator. Some emulators will try to render every update even if it means blocking the output from the program for the GUI to catch up, rather than just updating the state of the terminal in memory and rendering the latest version.
Examples of local commands I might run in tmux could include anything long-running which is started from the command line. A virtual machine (qemu), perhaps, or a video encode (ffmpeg). Then if I need to log out or restart my GUI session for any reason—or something goes wrong with the session manager—it won’t take the long-running process with it. While the same could be done with nohup or systemd-run, using tmux allows me to interact with the process after it’s started.
I also have systems which are accessed both locally and remotely, so sometimes (not often) I’ll start a program on a local terminal through tmux so I can later interact with it through SSH without resorting to x11vnc.
with books there’s basically no reasonable way to create an ebook from a hardcopy
On the contrary, tons of books have been digitized from hard copies through a combination of OCR and manual editing. (E.g.: Project Gutenberg.) The same basic process works for both printed books and pages displayed on an e-reader. It’s quite tedious but not exactly difficult. Anyone with a smartphone can submit usable scans, though some simple DIY equipment speeds up the process and improves the quality, and OCR is getting better all the time.
In the worst case the book can simply be retyped. People used to copy books by hand after all, using nothing more sophisticated than pen/quill and paper/parchment/papyrus. Unlike in those days the manual effort is only needed once per title, not per copy.
The average person would just download it. Only one needs the equipment to digitize it. And that equipment isn’t as specialized as you seem to think. For printed (mass-produced) books you can just cut the pages from the spine and feed them in batches through an automated document feeder, which comes standard with many consumer-grade scanners. Automated page-turning on an e-reader can be done with a software plugin in some cases, or externally with something like a SwitchBot. Capturing copy-restricted video is frankly much more involved, and that hasn’t stopped anyone so far.
Historically speaking, people have gone to the trouble of manually digitizing hard copy books to distribute freely. There were digital copies of print books available online (if you knew where to look) before e-books were officially available for sale in any form. That includes mass-market novels as well as items of interest to historians. Ergo, your scepticism seems entirely unjustified.
OCR is far from perfect (though editing OCR output is generally faster than retyping), but even without it we have the storage and bandwidth these days to distribute full books as stacks of images if needed, without converting them to text. The same way people distribute scans of comics/manga.
Librarians in public schools in Charlotte County, Florida, were instructed by the school district superintendent to remove all books with LGBTQ characters or themes from school and classroom libraries. The guidance by Charlotte County Superintendent Mark Vianello and the school board's attorney, Michael McKinley, was obtained by...
Allegories aside, the Bible definitely has a few LGBTQ characters, even if they’re not portrayed in a very positive light. I suppose that means they’ll be banning the Bible from school libraries? Not to mention a fair amount of historical literature… including anything featuring Leonardo da Vinci, Florence Nightingale, King James (yes, that King James), William Shakespeare, King Richard I, or Julius Caesar.
It will be interesting to see whether this makes the history classes easier, for lack of material to cover, or harder, for lack of references.
Citizens have their own limitations when their response strays outside the realm of speech. Boycotts are fine—you have no obligation to buy what they’re selling. However, harassment is not okay, and bullying is not okay. These things are wrong (and coincidentally illegal) on their own merits, and not a justified response to someone else’s speech.
A person can see a dog whistle and know it for what it is without being able to hear it. Also it’s not only dogs who can hear dog whistles; some people just have exceptionally good hearing.
The social contract concept is over-used by people who try to make it cover too much. It becomes a one-sided contract of adhesion which you’re assumed to have agreed to simply by existing. This, however, is simple reciprocation—it’s more like a truce than a contract. It would be unreasonable to expect tolerance from others while refusing to grant the same tolerance to them.
Of course there is no obligation to be intolerant just because the other person is; you are free to make a better choice.
Individuals do have more freedom to discriminate and show “social intolerance”, but that obviously doesn’t extend to punching people they disagree with. Or violent responses in general.
The morals of your actions are for you to decide. It’s your conscience. However, if you punched someone over what they said they would be perfectly justified both in defending themselves against your aggression and in punching you right back. At that point you would have no objective rational argument that their defense or retribution was wrong which would not similarly condemn your own actions. You’re the one who chose to escalate to violence, not them.
The most valuable thing is an experienced team who thoroughly understand both the specifications and the implementation as well as the reasoning behind both. Written specifications are great as onboarding and reference material but there will always be gaps between the specifications and the code. (“The map is not the territory.”) Even with solid specifications you can’t just turn over maintenance of a codebase to a new team and expect them to immediately be productive with it.
Unreal is “source available”, not Open Source. There’s a big difference. With any Open Source project you can legally fork the project, distribute your custom version of the code, create a community around your variant… “source available” has none of that. The Unreal EULA is more permissive than most game engine licenses (with the obvious exception of Godot) but it still comes with plenty of restrictions. For example:
You are permitted to post snippets of Engine Code, up to 30 lines of code in length, online in public forums for the sole purpose of discussing the content of the snippet or Distribute such snippets in connection with supporting patches and plug-ins for the Licensed Technology, so long as it is not for the purpose of enabling third parties without a license to the Engine Code to use or modify any Engine Code or to aggregate, recombine, or reconstruct any larger portion of the Engine Code.
To put it another way: do you think we should have the FDA? Or do you think everybody should have to test everything they eat and put on their skin?
There is a middle ground. The FDA shouldn’t have the power to ban a product from the market. They should be able to publish their recommendations, however, and people who trust them can choose to follow those recommendations. Others should be free to publish their own recommendations, and some people will choose to follow those instead.
Applied to online content: Rather than having no filter at all, or relying on a controversial, centralized content policy, users would subscribe to “reputation servers” which would score content based on where it comes from. Anyone could participate in moderation and their moderation actions (positive or negative) would be shared publicly; servers would weight each action according to their own policies to determine an overall score to present to their followers. Users could choose a third-party reputation server to suit their own preferences or run their own, either from scratch or blending recommendations from one or more other servers.
What if they never even hear the FDA recommendation?
Then the FDA isn’t doing a very good job, are they? Ensuring that people hear their recommendations (and trust them) would be among their core goals.
The rare fringe cases where someone is affected indirectly without personally having choosen to purchase the product can be dealt with through the courts. There is no need for preemptive bans.
You misunderstood. It’s not a middle ground between “can regulate” and “cannot regulate”. That would indeed be idiotic. It’s a middle ground between “must judge everything for yourself” and “someone else determines what you have access to”. Someone else does the evaluation and tells you whether they think it’s worthwhile, but you choose whose recommendations to listen to (or ignore, if you please).
No, I am not okay with bans like that. You should be able to knowingly buy products with mercury in them. Obviously if someone is selling products containing mercury and not disclosing that fact, passing them off as safe to handle, that would be a problem and they would be liable for any harm that resulted from that. But it doesn’t justify a preemptive ban.
Liability would be decided by the courts or another form of binding arbitration. Obviously. Harming someone through action or negligence is a tort, and torts are addressed by the judicial branch. Both sides would present their arguments, including any scientific evidence in their favor—the FDA or similar organizations could weigh in here as expert witnesses, if they have something to offer—and the court will decide whether the vendor acted reasonably or has liability toward the defendant.
If you knowingly sell me a car with an engine about to fail, you are in no way accountable.
If you knew that the engine was about to fail and didn’t disclose that fact, or specifically indicate that the vehicle was being sold “as-is” with no guarantees, then you certainly should be accountable for that. Your contract with the buyer was based on the premise that they were getting a vehicle in a certain condition. An unknown fault would be one thing, but if you knew about the issue and the buyer did not then there was no “meeting of the minds”, which means that the contract is void and you are a thief for taking their payment under false pretenses.
Anyway, you continue to miss the point. I’m not saying that everyone should become an expert in every domain. I’m saying that people should be able to choose their own experts (reputation sources) rather than have one particular organization like the FDA (instance/community moderators) pre-filtering the options for everyone. I wasn’t even the one who brought up the FDA—this thread was originally about online content moderation. If you insist on continuing the thread please try to limit yourself to relevant points.
STOP ROLLING D4 (lemmy.world)
Had this conversation with someone who chose to no longer be at my table after meeting a blind NPC (files.catbox.moe)
Another player who was at the table during the incident sent me this meme after the problem player in question (they had a history) left the group chat....
Privacy = no free speech (lemmy.ml)
Anon does mental math (sh.itjust.works)
Texas Republicans Ban Women From Using Highways for Abortion Appointments (www.newsweek.com)
Lubbock County, Texas, joins a group of other rural Texas counties that have voted to ban women from using their roads to seek abortions....
Anon on credit scores (sh.itjust.works)
I asked them to delete my data, they said "Install our app" (lemmy.world)
A few days ago I sent a GDPR request to some company to delete my personal data. They said to install their app and send a ticket from the app. The email was sent from the email address to which the account is registered. Is this even legal?
I’ve just released Gatekeeper 1.6.0. It’s a single executable that turns any Linux machine into a home gateway. Now with realtime traffic graphs, LAN autoconfiguration, full cone NAT and better looks. (github.com)
Hi all home network administrators :) Haven’t posted anything here since June, when I told you about Gatekeeper 1.1.0. Back then it was a pretty bare-bones (and maybe slightly buggy) DNS + DHCP server with a web UI with a list of LAN clients. Back at 1.1.0 Gatekeeper didn’t even configure your LAN interface or set up NAT...
I mean it could be right (i.imgur.com)
Got to love Mastodon (files.catbox.moe)
PSA: Don't torrent over TOR (tor.stackexchange.com)
It doesn’t make you anonymous. Torrent protocol wasn’t designed with anonymity in mind and there are a million ways you’re going to leak your actual IP address....
Most of us hate Microsoft, and yet many of us use VSCode
I get that it’s open source provided you use codium not code but I still find that interesting
Amazon Prime Video is able to remove a video from your library after purchase. (lemmy.world)
We are contacting you regarding a past Prime Video purchase(s). The below content is no longer playable on Prime Video....
Florida school district orders librarians to purge all books with LGBTQ characters (popular.info)
Librarians in public schools in Charlotte County, Florida, were instructed by the school district superintendent to remove all books with LGBTQ characters or themes from school and classroom libraries. The guidance by Charlotte County Superintendent Mark Vianello and the school board's attorney, Michael McKinley, was obtained by...
Tolerating intolerance (i.imgur.com)
Unity deleted these terms, don't let them get out (lemmy.today)
From The Internet Archive: web.archive.org/…/Unity Software Additional Terms…
"First remove the closed source vendor lock in from your own codebase before checking for license issues in your neighbor's codebase" Engineerings 5:33 (lemmy.world)
Switching from Unity to Godot: Tips and What You Should Expect (popcar.bearblog.dev)
I made a blog post about my experience switching from Unity to Godot earlier this year, and some tips for Unity devs.
ISPs Should Not Police Online Speech—No Matter How Awful It Is. (www.eff.org)