Pika

You are 1000% correct. I’ve been yelled at or have witnessed a few times people making a huge stink but clearly can’t differentiate between the types of “ai” to even know what they are complaining about.

They just know “AI = Bad” so they get their pitchforks out.

the last time I burned a disk was probably almost 9 years ago now. It was Ubuntu server because at the time I had the concept of "well I should have a hard install source in case I need to do a full reinstall. I dropped that mentality almost instantly though as I realized that it was better for me to just do backups because there was way too much contents for a DVD and I didn’t wanna have to reconfigure if it messed up.

I would describe windows Office as a combination Spyware Malware. It actively collects data on you using obscure means, in an attempt to prevent you from knowing how it’s collecting it. It will also actively change your settings without your knowledge. With recent updates I would even classify it as potentially adware as well, since they mentioned adding advertisements to the start menu and explorer. since they hard push their office products.

Honestly, with the fact that it also now force installs software against the users will on updates, the argument could be made that it’s slipping into trojan territory as well, it’s just lacking the backdoor access, but since they are hard pushing MS account authorization for login, I guess you don’t really need a backdoor when if you wanted to you could just force a password change and be able to login via the native login system.

edit: I thought this post was based off MAS as in to activate windows, I just now realized it was MAS for office activation. I still think that the same applies, just not the trojan aspect. I have edited it to reflect it.

I’ve never rebuilt a container, but I also don’t have any containers that are deprecated status either. I swap off to alternatives when a project hits deprecation or abandonware status.

My only deprecated container I currently have is filebrowser, I’m still seeking alternatives and have been for awhile now but strangely enough it doesn’t seem there are many web UI file management containers.

As such though ever since I learned that the project was abandoned on life support(the maintainer has said they are doing security patches only, and that while they are doing more on the project currently, that could change), the container remains off, only activating it when i need to use it.

oh for sure, it made sense that they wanted to make sure was fixed. Just was super alarming the speed it was advertised that the relay was there!

reminds me of my first mail server, accidentally set up an open relay and got a lot of abuse reports from mail providers saying they blocked my server due to it. Took forever to get fixed again.

fully agree, mine isnt accessible to the outside world either but, you never know if something gets missed or somehow a path gets made. would rather not open up that risk

Silk Song had x33 beat by almost triple the max player count. the fact that it didn’t get the inde title and they gave it to X33 is criminal. Silk Song beat it on price and player count and arguably story.

Sadly no recommendations, I still use portainer myself

while docker does have a non-root installer, the default installer for docker is docker as root, containers as non-root, but since in order to manage docker as a whole it would need access to the socket, if docker has root the container by extension has root.

Even so, if docker was installed in a root-less environment then a compromised manager container would still compromise everything on that docker system, as a core requirement for these types of containers are access to the docker socket which still isn’t great but is still better than full root access.

To answer the question: No it doesn’t require it to function, but the default configuration is root, and even in rootless environment a compromise of the management container that is meant to control other containers will result in full compromise of the docker environment.

man, arcane looks amazing, I ended up deciding off it though as their pull requests look like they use copilot for a lot of code for new features. Not that I personally have an issue with this but, I’ve seen enough issues where copilot or various AI agents add security vulnerabilities by mistake and they aren’t caught, so I would rather stray away from those types of projects at least until that issue becomes less common/frequent.

For something as detrimental as a management console to a program that runs as root on most systems, and would provide access to potentially high secure locations, I would not want such a program having security vulnerabilities.

yea it makes it so much easier since there’s only one user in the system anyway so makes no sense for everything to be installed system level

The majority of my development work is on chat bots or sites so I’ve always just used bot as the name

I always make a ~/.local/{bin,opt,share} if the distro lacks it. and a ~/bot that I use for my development stuff

I don’t agree with this. While they have stated its against their stores policies to use permanent identifiers instead of your IDFA, I haven’t seen any stories of them actually enforcing said restriction. I’ve seen a lot of /them/ saying that they will and do, but I’ve never seen a story of a company saying they were disabled for it.

On top of that, they didn’t forbid companies from using workarounds like a unique device fingerprint using your current device configuration for it either, so many apps just did that instead, which brought everyone back to square one again, they just switched to using a third party to identify the device instead of using apple’s first party solution.

Privacy advocates actually warned that apples way of marketing this feature would do exactly what is occurring here. Giving users a false sense of privacy when really very little has changed.

From a company POV it’s probally meant to try and encourage you to let a friend know, but it seems that the page in this case might change upon login because it says to sign in to see your deals if you are an existing member. I don’t have it though so I can’t confirm that so I’m running off assumptions based off what the “eligibility” area says

maybe they updated it, for me it says first 12 months and then specifies “new customers only” under the “who’s eligible for this plan” section on the deal page. It also doesn’t give a link to login anymore and informs existing customers to sign in to see their own specialized deal

I’m just chiming in to say that while the documentation gives you information on how to do external access, there are multiple issues open on the github about unauthenticated endpoints that if you know what is on the server already, you can confirm that it’s there

So I wouldn’t use a standard naming convention because using that knowledge, someone who cares could use common names that could be on the server, followed by common standards of formats they would be in, and be able to confirm it’s their via the end points.

Firmly agree, I think their primary issue is it’s hard to find a game that they refuse that would be a decent game to back that type of cause. This is just due to the nature of the games that get rejected on Steam. They’re the controversial leaning style games.

This one in particular for sure isn’t a good choice, because of the underage controversy but, all of these style games are also going to have a pretty vocal and not so small group against this type of effort.

I have to disagree to be honest. Not because I think that they should allow a naked guy with a young girl(gross), but because in the time that it took for steam to review the game and give a verdict, they had already changed it on their own to be a different model.

For them to refuse re-submission of the game is pretty dumb, considering that the offending content(if that is what it was) had already been fixed in the release build and steam was operating under old information.

If they haden’t already changed it for the release candidate I would be fully on board, but clearly they saw wrong in it as well which was why they had changed it prior to steams decision.

Steam forced an early release build of the game way earlier than they normally asked for, which meant it was exactly that, a pre-release build, meaning it had not gone through the proper channels for vetting or checking to make sure that what they wanted to publish was a final product. Then when requested for a review of the actual final build, steam refused. This combined with the fact that the only storefront that blocked the release was steam, I definitely think steam is the bad guy here.

BEING SAID, this might not be the reason anyway, reading the struggles of this games development process, steam had already posted concern about the live action portions of the game, so I’m expecting it might have been a combination of the nudity aspect of the game (even if not intended to arouse) and the live action portions. I assume steam was already looking for a reason to block this release, and when they were given one they just went with it.