If they did it wouldn’t do much, since most Mastodon instances are strongly opposed to anything even vaguely right so a federated Truth Social would immediately be defederated by at least a third to half of instances with any user base.
Hell, several of the Mastodon mobile apps implemented blacklists into the app so you couldn’t use instances the app developer didn’t like with their app. When you see a Mastodon mobile app with negative reviews about “the largest Mastodon instance” that’s what was going on - when Gab switched to a Mastodon back end around 2019 it technically immediately became the largest Mastodon instance and several of the mobile apps blacklisted it at the app level.
Oh no doubt. I didn’t know Gab was mastodon though, that’s interesting. It’s pathetic how these conservative products launch as “a new social media network for conservatives”, and it’s actually… just Mastodon. Gab even moreso since it ended up relaunching as Mastodon later.
It’s pathetic how these conservative products launch as “a new social media network for conservatives”, and it’s actually… just Mastodon. Gab even moreso since it ended up relaunching as Mastodon later.
Using an existing, generally stable open source solution that has the features you need isn’t pathetic, it’s generally a good idea. It’s like complaining that some websites run on Apache, even if you don’t agree with their politics and even if Apache devs publicly don’t agree with their politics.
What it tells you is that Mastodon does a good job at what it does, mostly.
The service, the website it’s running on and the phone app were all new things created for Trump though. I don’t see anything saying anything about what the back end runs on.
Let me use a huge internet company that isn’t tied to Trump and isn’t a conservative thing for a comparison. Netflix uses at least 3 different open source Apache products as part of their tech stack, and that isn’t the **only **open source stuff they use. No one is going to argue that Netflix is lying about providing a new/separate service just because there’s quite a bit of open source in their stack, especially on the back end (including stream processing).
Hell, there’s a term LAMP that has been used because the specific combination of Linux OS, Apache web server, mySQL database and PHP scripting was so fucking common - all of those are open source and at least one of those is part of the back end of a lot web sites you likely visit (including Wikipedia, Facebook and Slack which all use LAMP). Apache is the web server software for something like 30% of websites.
It’s the same thing with Truth Social and Gab - they built a new site, running a new service , with their own newly coded mobile app, that runs modified Mastodon as a core part of their back end. The AGPL (the license Mastodon is under) also requires distributing the source they use, including any modifications, so the source code behind both sites is freely available.
Did you notice that the text sounds like it was written by a bad ai?
If I were a little more cynical, I’d say you’re posting this because you want people to read the headline, think to themselves “China bad”, then move on with their day, doing no more investigation into the matter.
If the above paragraph was not your intention, please explain to me what exactly you were hoping to achieve here.
You never seem to hear about American cyber attacks, though. The two countries conduct cyber warfare completely differently, the US tends to keep their exploits secret and hold them in reserve, while China uses them as much as they can until they’re discovered.
However most of the text is talking about regular spying from agents within the armed forces, not cyber attacks. Just because it involves sharing data does not make it “cyber”.
Yes but the internet is made of more than just US media. China might report on them, Russia and North Korea also, but these three are the most well known state actor APTs encountered on computer networks all over the world, so it makes sense that they would throw shade in retaliation for being called out for their attacks. Meanwhile all the European tech companies, ones not bound by US law who are keen to report negatively on the US three letter agencies, none of them ever have much to report on US cyber actions. They don’t find anything.
I’m sure the US definitely does conduct cyber warfare, however they’re a far cry away from China in the level that they do. The US are incredibly surgical and don’t get caught, in part by focusing on their target. Meanwhile we have Russia hacking the Sochi Winter Olympics and North Korea stealing billions from banks. China is at least a little different, they assist businesses to hack on their behalf, stealing patents and technology. A lighter shade of black hat hacking, perhaps, but still cyber crime.
The US seem to generally conduct cyber warfare, while China, Russia and North Korea also conduct cyber crime.
Edit: Oh wait, of course, the US did Stuxnet - the virus which attacked Iran’s nuclear centrifuges and then later many other computers over the world. However again, that was more warfare based. The goal was to inhibit Iran’s nuclear capabilities as a military target, rather than anything commercial.
So do you still just get 50 Yuan for each one of these, or are they paying any better these days? You’d think they would at least tell you to occasionally post about something else.
It would be way more sense to film a wet wall drying. or the grass growing. This “show” not just makes an unbearable joke out of Asimov’s legacy, but the even the message got lost… this whole thing is nothing more than an other disgusting cash-grab. I read the book multiple times, I had to drop after ep 4… It’s a trashy romantic space-turd packaged with Asimov’s name to anyone who have no idea who Asimov was or anything what he was doing / creating… for anyone with iq over 45 and have experienced the original works realize there’s nothing to watch here… “An other one bites the dust”… :(
The show writers add a lot of additional content that isn’t in the books, especially pertaining to characters. Almost none of the character stories are from Asimov, because the books are focused on events over thousands of years, not on characters. The content the show writers add isn’t very compelling or interesting.
The books themselves aren’t all that great. They’re okay. They were probably pretty revolutionary in their time, but they’re just okay now. I think they’re worth reading as important pieces of sci-fi history, but don’t expect anything mind blowing.
Basically I’m saying it doesn’t matter if you read the books or watch the show. Both are okay, but the show is a lot more boring than the books. Some people probably love the content, I could take it or leave it. For the books I took it to the end, for the show I left it after a couple of episodes.
I think the reason they’d need to do a thing in a pressed timeframe is that, while psychohistory describes populations over time, sufficient understanding can allow someone to make a relatively small tweak that ripples through time.
You make a good point. With sufficient knowledge of the mathematics they might be capable of exploiting it. It seems like it should be possible to expedite the results you want, but I don’t feel like that should make them a necessity.
spoilerI suspect we will see Demerzel in season 3 taking full advantage of this.
I haven't seen any of season two yet, but enjoyed the first one with the understanding that it was an adaptation. I had always said that any attempt to bring the Foundation books to TV or movies would have to take the general plot and ideas and heavily adapt them to make them work. The Foundation stories are both very dated in characters and in science fiction to make them believable to today's audience, and were originally short stories that eventually were combined for a large scale galactic story spanning centuries with lots of different people. You might be able to pick out from these points as to how the TV series handled those issues in a new imagining of the overall concept of an Empire that both in its peak and yet doomed to collapse, and the attempt to minimize the effects.
Read the books. They won't spoil anything since the series is using things but in different ways. There are later prequels written by other authors to fill in more of the story with the permission of Asimov's estate, and while they're not too bad it's a similar problem to try and use and capture the original magic while being more up to date with new ideas. It doesn't always work.
Do you remember what those prequels were called? I could have sworn there were some prequels written by Asimov himself. Specifically Prelude to Foundation and Forward the Foundation.
He had a few that were published after his death, presumably finalized and edited by someone else. The other ones are: Foundation's Fear by Gregory Benford, Foundation and Chaos by Greg Bear, and Foundation's Triumph by David Brin.
PiHole is great but as it’s a DNS server, if your unraid machine is turned off then you have no dns and cannot reasonably use the internet. Luckily you can run two instances - one in a container and another on a raspberry pi (or any other machine) so if one of them goes down then you still have DNS. Then you can point your router at both - you always have two options for DNS, the second being a backup, or used for load balancing. Even Google and Cloudflare provide two DNS servers.
You need to maintain both simultaneously so they have the same blacklists and general settings. There is another service called GravitySync that handles that for you but I’ve never been able to get that to work.
Just be aware that SI1’s setup isn’t great and it’s better to use Trash’s guide. The main idea being that downloads and media should be on the same share.
The thing he does wrong is set up separate shares for downloads and media. These should instead be directories in a share called data (or whatever you choose to call it). That way when NZBGet moves the file from downloads to media, it just updates the file system to change the directory. The files stay on the same physical sectors of the drive. If they are in different shares, NZBGet needs to copy the file which can take extra time, wear and tear on the drives, and energy. It’s an unnecessary and expensive step due to a misconfiguration.
Best practice is to pass through the data directory to all your containers (and remove the movies and tv shows directories in the container since they’re included in data) and pass everything through there. It’ll work 1000x better.
But don’t take my word for it. Use trash’s guide for this.
In my opinion, you should be running everything as a docker container. I would first get Plex running to learn, and expand from there; Sonarr, Radarr, Prowlarr, Overseerr, torrent client, etc.
For resources and documentation, Spaceinvaderone on YouTube is great (older but still relevant), and I also enjoy IBRACORP’s videos. As for text based, TRaSH Guides are basically defacto.
I think you don’t know what a proxy war is because US officials now openly say that it is a proxy war. Here’s former United States ambassador to Finland openly saying this in a mainstream US publication:
I don’t understand how what your saying is a response to my post. I don’t even understand how your statements are internally coherent: „I think you don’t know what a proxy war is“ <> „because US officials now openly say it is a proxy war“. Also I don’t think someone who was an ambassador to Finland 18 years ago can be counted as a „US official“.
What specifically are you having trouble understanding here. The war is between US and Russia, and plenty of US officials have active openly acknowledged it.
RAND published a whole study where it advocated for a proxy war in Ukraine as a way to weaken Russia. We also now know that US also sabotaged negotiations last March that could’ve ended the war. Given all that’s now known, it takes stunning amount of intellectual dishonesty to pretend this isn’t a proxy war.
Stop posting links and work on your poor reading comprehension.
Even though it is beside the point, Mitt Romney doesn’t say what you’re claiming, neither in the video nor the tweet you linked. McConnell says nothing about a proxy war in that statement and neither does Blumenthal. You are extrapolating political affiliation from half-statements or even single words and interpret them how you choose. I don’t know about RAND and I do not care, because I never said it wasn’t a proxy war, but are these really the strongest evidence you could find?
Lead me through your thought process, please. Where exactly in these two sentences did I say that this isn’t a proxy war? Because once again, for around the fourth time today: what you claim to have been said, was in fact not said.
Saying “Do you think anyone doesn’t know what a proxy war is?” can be interpreted to mean that this is not a proxy war, and claiming that it is one relies on people not knowing the meaning of the term. Kind of weird that you don’t understand that. However, if you agree that this is a proxy war then the rest of your comment is pure nonsense. Also, hilarious how you brush off the RAND study I linked given the role RAND plays in shaping US foreign policy.
It seems you often interpret things the way you feel, instead of what was actually being said. You just did it again - I never said I agree this is a proxy war. As I said before, whether it is or isn’t is beside the point I‘m trying to make.
Funny how you call out the one thing I haven’t addressed after ignoring my rebuffs several times. Still, I took a quick look at the RAND study; it’s from 2019, they argue strategies to weaken Russia. After 2014, a move like that was already on the horizon - thinking about this stuff is their job. How you get from that to calling it „advocating“, and the claim it is a proxy war, and even think this is actual evidence of anything, is beyond me. There even is an editor’s note „There because Russian entities and individuals sympathetic to Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine have mischaracterized this research“. That is my point.
It seems that you like to play word games instead of speaking plainly then focus conversation on psychoanalyzing people you’re attacking instead of making any actual points in the discussion. If you read the study and missed the part where it says that a war in Ukraine would be a way to weaken Russia then I don’t know what else to say to you. The fact that they had to add a note to distance themselves from what they suggested actually shows the opposite of your point.
Meanwhile, Stoltenberg has now publicly acknowledged that Putin made clear to NATO in a draft treaty before the war that it could avert it if NATO agreed not to keep enlarging. But NATO rejected the offer.
Then lastly on Sweden. First of all, it is historic that now Finland is member of the Alliance. And we have to remember the background. The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that.
The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.
So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.
So, yes it’s a proxy war that was directly caused by NATO expansion. Plenty of western experts have been saying this for many decades. Then people started peddling your simplistic narrative after the war started. Here’s what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.___ https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/832e713d-8963-4ecc-ae1f-8b366830bbd4.png
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"___ https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/706556d4-ae53-4140-9cb2-bb2cfefd9c52.png
Even Gorbachev warned about this. All these experts were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
It seems that you like to play word games instead of speaking plainly then focus conversation on psychoanalyzing people you’re attacking instead of making any actual points in the discussion.
… I simply don‘t appreciate having words put in my mouth in order to make me a strawman.
You are an apologist of Russia‘s war of aggression, which is what I have said from the start and which you have made abundantly clear.
lemmy.ml
Hot