Dumb.

I bet a lot of folks have just quietly given up or moved to lemmy or mbin because they’ve gotten frustrated with all the issues.

I guess it's not quiet once I post this, but I submitted the account deletion request a couple weeks back and spent some time setting my feedly back up after 1 too many spam posts. I'm already getting my scrolling fix from rss feeds again, and this is the first time I've been on kbin in a week.

tl;dr: you're right.

Incognito mode has always been intended for prying eyes using the same browser, and it works fine for that.

Like right after 9/11...

Pretty much. You can download images with everything bundled and ready to go (e.g., deploy a new container image instead of upgrading your Radarr version in place) and keep them separate (e.g., Torrent container goes through vpn but your media server doesn't, Radarr upgrade going south won't affect your Sonarr install, etc.)

Until some legal entity decides to raid the servers. Pray they do not keep logs of IPs. Though usually this may be (to some extent) a gray zone in some countries.

Can you give an example? I don't think accessing a file somebody makes available has ever been an issue with copyright prosecution. They go after uploaders and hosts.

Even if they did, an IP in a server log isn't definitive proof of an individual accessing something. However, I'm less confident of worldwide legal systems understanding that. Still, I'd be curious if there's a single example of somebody being charged over accessing publicly accessible copyrighted files on the web.

I never said they're exclusive; I use both in my workflow. The comment to which I replied made it seem like private trackers were the end-all though, which I took issue with.

I also think your upsides are a bit misleading. I wouldn't use torrents without a VPN (upfront cash), and the effort to learn how usenet works isn't any more daunting than the effort needed to get into good private trackers and keep up the ratios (e.g., tracking time/ratio based on tracker, working with hardlinks, etc.).

Or the weapons. Have to imagine there's a pretty wide disparity between the police and average citizens. If Prigozhin/Wagner couldn't get it done, it's not exactly a simple task for some politically progressive average folks.

How to pirate movies as a pro

No mention of Usenet

A few seconds past the timestamp I linked:

As good as my memory is, I don't remember that. But I have a good memory.

So you don't remember saying you have one of the best memories in the world?

I don't remember that.

Seems like she didn’t inherit her father’s “perfect memory”.

Sure she did.

I got ya. I'm agreeing that he's a coward and an idiot, but disagreeing that he might not have been trying to murder a guy. He might not have believed it was murder, because of the idiot part...but the video convinced me he was intentionally trying to kill the unarmed man in the back of his car.

At an active threat, sure. When the dude's been searched, handcuffed, and trapped in the back of a car...there's some personal responsibility, imo.

Would just be an idiot and a coward trying to kill a man.

You don't mag dump like that if you don't care. He very much was trying to kill him.

like we’ve learned absolutely nothing from the experience

We've learned a lot, it's just what we've learned is about the nature of our employers and our value to them.

vSphere was never available in the free tier.

The reality is that nobody's learning much useful from Free ESXi, as you need vCenter for any of the good stuff. They want you using the eval license for that, which gives you the full experience but only for 60 days.

Still, there's a lot of folks running free ESXi in labs (home and otherwise) and other small environments that may need to expand at some point. They're killing a lot of good will and entry-level market saturation for what appears (to me at least) literally zero benefit. The paid software is the same, so they're not developing any less. And they weren't offering support with the free license anyway, so they're not saving anything there.

I don't believe it was, based on the other cars present in the videos.

Seems like the witnesses saw it differently.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/02/12/waymo-set-on-fire-sf/72567647007/

"They were putting out some rage for really no reason at all. They just wanted to vandalize something, and they did," witness Edwin Carungay told KGO-TV.

The witness told the outlet the Waymo was vandalized and set on fire by a big group of people.

"One young man jumped on the hood, and on the windshield.," Carungay told KGO. "That kind of started the whole melee."

What about contacting them and telling them you'd like to place an order but won't be because of the long wait times (which should reflect in the apps if they're striking)? You can include a suggestion that they pay a fair wage to attract enough drivers to meet the demand they're failing to meet.

Sure, if you're willing to count my house as a "fence," otherwise the same logic would make you liable if someone breaks into your house and drowns in your bathtub. Of course it's not likely at all, but if someone were to smash down your front door to commit suicide in your tub, nobody's going to argue that's your fault.

I'll agree that leaving a firearm laying in the open in your back yard should be criminally negligent though, so can get behind that much of the pool analogy.

I’m not saying that is the case here, but I’d like to know if it is.

It's not. The reason I called out the specific Nanovault in another comment was that a friend had locked his (the gun bumped into the internal button to change the combination and it had gotten changed and was unknown, another ridiculous design flaw). Rather than mess around with cracking the new combination, I shoved the blade of my pocket knife into it, twisted it, and it popped open. Literally the same amount of effort/force and sticking a key into a keyhole and turning it, but without needing the actual key.

After realizing how secure it wasn't, he decided to test the other one he had before replacing them. Picked it up and dropped it from about waist height onto the garage floor (empty, no gun in it). It popped open, sending little plastic bits from the locking mechanism everywhere.

Yet, these are generally considered to meet the California legal standard of "a locked container or in a location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure."

I disagree. The safe or trigger lock does nothing in this example, making them functionally identical situations. You're literally suggesting making it illegal to be burgled but legal to be robbed, which is an asinine distinction.

And you're implying that not using a safe or trigger lock means no precautions are taken. If the gun is in a locked house already, is that not "secure"? It's as secure as a knife needs to be to not be a liability if stolen and used in a crime. Hell, a locked building is sufficient security for a pyrotechnics company to store their literal explosives.

I also specifically disagree that the barest of minimum (as you're describing it here) is better than nothing (as defined as no safe/trigger lock). A gun locked in one of these in an easily accessible room meets your "barest minimum" criteria, but is more easily stolen than one hidden in a non-locking box in a locked apartment.

I think the better solutions focus on harsher penalties for the theft itself and more laws/enforcement around failure to report thefts.

The "safe storage" laws are usually pretty worthless just on how they define "safe" on top of the actual problem with enforcement. They're not meaningful in any practical way, as anyone responsible enough that they should be allowed to own a gun already locks their shit down.

People who only lock their firearms away because they're required to are the reason shit like Nanovaults are so popular. They're a good-sounding concept, but in reality are held together with flimsy plastic internals. You can literally pry them open with a knife or housekey, or even just slam them onto the ground to pop them open.

tl;dr: Given the lax legal definition of a safe, using one doesn't necessarily add any meaningful security.

As an aside, I have safes for valuables and documents I'd like to survive a housefire...but I don't have any record of owning them. Were they stolen, I don't think it'd be easy to prove I didn't have them.

On one hand, I think there's an argument to be made about this depending on how "secure" is defined, but this has too much in common with the case that promiscuous enough clothing implies consent, so I'll reject that notion outright.

And "robbery" implies force or the threat of force. If somebody has a gun to your head and tells you to give you the gun in your safe or the gun in your nightstand drawer, is there really a meaningful difference? I somebody stabs you then takes your gun while you crawl around bleeding, does are you really any more/less a victim based on where they take it from?

I don't think they're that different. I also don't think there's many (any?) cases where kids are getting their hands on gun where existing laws could/should not be used to charge the owner, as happened with this case. I'm rarely in favor of new laws when the existing ones would accomplish the same goal, were they actually being enforced consistently.

You can keep all the guns you want but if you fail to secure them you’re held liable.

I think support for this depends a lot on where that line is drawn. Failing to keep your admittedly troubled children away from guns is obvious (and covered by existing laws, hence the guilty verdict here). At the other extreme, I don't think having a gun stolen during a legitimate robbery should be criminalized, since that's moving into victim-blaming territory.

I'm not sure where the line is drawn, but a parent in this sort situation has some responsibility both from the failure in parenting and the failure in securing the firearm. Makes for an easy agreement with the verdict in this specific situation, imo.

1. https://www.synology.com/en-au/support/RAID_calculator or similar is good to easily do these calculations
2. No, but more RAID configurations than not are limited by the smallest size drive. It's a factor to consider, assuming you can't afford to just buy a bunch of disks. I wound up maintaining two separate NAS devices, one of which gets my old, smaller disks.
3. Generally yes, though you'd be surprised how little difference disk speed makes once you get enough of them in an array.
4. I use Synology with various shucked WD externals. I have a bunch of other stuff in my homelab though, so I need the storage to not be it's own project, else I likely would have built something less expensive. I'm sure there will be better suggestions in this thread than mine.

Possible, but given the unwarranted confidence in the earlier comments and the "Couldn’t give a shit" in response to being shown to be inaccurate, I'm not inclined to give the user in question the benefit of the doubt.

No it didn't, given the wording used.

From the article linked in the OP:

“When they wrapped the baby up tightly, they propped the baby’s head on top of the blanket to make it appear like the head was attached when it wasn’t,” attorney Dr. Roderick Edmond said.

Definitely doesn't sound like an "internal decapitation" to me. What a strange thing to lie about.

For things I don't care enough to archive to my own collection, I use a Shield TV with SmartTube, an alternative client that blocks ads, incorporates SponsorBlock, and a few other nice tweaks. Definitely my favorite YT experience of all the ones I've tried.

I don't know how common they are anymore, as Plex has moved toward hosting their own metadata and I've never bothered using any myself, but there historically have been some number of YT metadata agents (e.g., this one) folks could add onto their Plex server and pull the metadata from YT directly. Expanding something like this to also query the Sponsorblock API seems like it wouldn't be terribly difficult.

The harder part would be getting the player to incorporate Sponsorblock to actually use that data to skip the segments. Plex, in particular, seems unlikely to ever try something like this, as their business model is moving more and more toward ad-supported streaming content rather than improving the self-hosted media server that got them popular.

That seems like it's more on shitty parenting than something affected by advertising, no?

You wouldn't want the Sponsorblock to be part of the download process, but rather the player. Being crowdsourced, it's not immediate and often gets improved/corrected over time, so a video's least likely to have good Sponsorblock timestamps right after being uploaded (when an automated program would likely be downloading it).

We need a Plex/Jellyfin/etc. metadata provider with the Sponsorblock info included. Could keep the data up to date, even after the videos are downloaded.

Without the Oxford Comma, it's not a list but an appositive phrase. In that context, it's correct usage.

So what's you're proposed solution? Your directive to "fix that" was a bit light on details.

This is a step in the right direction. The automated reviews will supplement, not replace, the reviewing triggered by manual reports you supported in your initial comment. I'd argue the pushback from police unions is a sign that it actually might lead to some change, given the reasoning the give in the article.

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/oxford-comma

So fix that.

Were it so simple, it would have been fixed decades ago. The difference is that having AI review the footage is actually feasible.