Dual booting is the worst possible combination, given that any windows update will kill the linux bootloader (major update to be fair, but it will happen and then you have to recovery iso to fix the bootloader every time). Plus having to disable all boot optimizations on the windows side because of tainted filesystem that linux can't figure out without risk of data destruction. I'd rather just use a VM - but the same games that don't run on linux also dont want you playing in a VM.
This is no longer true, and has been for close to a decade now. If you sandbox the Windows bootloader in a directory it will not be able to mess up your custom boot loading config, especially booting to the kernel from UEFI.
I've been dual booting windows/arch for almost 1 years now. Except the rare case that windows fucks my grub and I have to mkconfig again it'd been smooth sailing.
I have them on the separate nvmes and I disable Linux nvme before I boot into windows.
Last time I accidentally inserted encrypted pendrive I use in Linux when my windows was booted, it immediately offered razing the partition to the ground, creating a new one and quick formatting it. Very helpfully "OK" was preselected. If I was a bit more tired I'd be a bit sad.
Windows is intentionally hostile to anything non-windows. Enjoy your dual booting while it lasts :)
Yep. I've been a paying Google Workspace user for almost 20 years now (in the various iterations of the product name).
Some stuff goes in GitHub, none of which I actually truly care about though.
I'm sure you'll groan. :)
But hey, if it's good enough for Cloudflare and Datadog (two past employers), it's good enough for me.
I also may be weird because I don't own any media and I'm perfectly happy with the streaming model. I enjoy not having the mental load of thinking about self-hosting and backing up terabytes of stuff.
Yeah it makes it very easy to be OS-independant. I have backups of my whole home directory so if anything goes awry I can just reinstall software as I go and restore my config files from the most recent backup.
I have a Nextcloud instance for family to store files, though.
Yeah, but presumably that's not acceptable to the person who talks about "(not) caring about the privacy of data you put in windows" in the ancestor comment, which is why I mentioned rebooting.
Enemy combatants to...what? When has congress declared war? Using your military to assassinate another countries civilians is a literal war crime under customary international humanitarian law.
Crimes (alleged) on the high seas have a very long history of being prosecuted under their own set of rules. Look into it, you may be surprised what is “normal”
What I believe you're referring to is piracy, not drug smuggling. The term is Hostis humani generis - or enemy of mankind.
There is a very long tradition of treating pirates as outside of all laws because pirates would murder and pillage in one jurisdiction or on the high seas and then sail away to another jurisdiction. So all nations had a duty to confront pirates. That is not to say that summary execution was considered normal - it happened, but typically pirates were captured and afforded some due process.
In the modern era this logic has been extended to terrorism and certain crimes against humanity like torture.
It has NOT been extended to encompass drug trafficking. If you're smuggling drugs from Venezuela to Trinidad, you really don't want to be detected, so you're not going to stop any random ship that you see and murder the crew and steal the cargo. The whole concept of the pirate as someone who is waging war on humanity with extreme violence and can't be effectively dealt with by the nation that is effected doesn't really apply neatly to this situation.
You could make the argument that because drugs are dangerous, and drugs can be transported anywhere, that drug traffickers are effectively enemies of humanity who are doing extreme violence in the same vein as terrorists and pirates. But that would be a novel argument, not, in any way, "normal".
Is it spooky that they said they looked inside a customer's image to fix this? A bunch of engineers just had access to their customer's intellectual property, security keys, git repos, ...
If you are adding security keys and git repos to your final shipped image you are doing things very wrong - a container image is literally a tarball and some metadata about how to run the executables inside. Even if you need that data to build your application you should use a multi-stage build to include only the final artifacts in the image you ship.
For stuff like security keys you should typically add them as build --args-- secrets, not as content in the image.
Yep. The only valid usecase I think of is using the secret for something else, eg connecting to an internal package registry, in which case the secret mounts may help.
Yeah, typically, but in this case they're commiting and commiting in the container image, and saving changes from running software. Not only that, they're commiting log files into the image, which is crazy.
The thing here is they're using Docker container images like if they were VM disks and they end up with images with almost 300 layers, like in this case. I think LXC or VMs should be a better case for this (but I don't know if they've tested it or why are they using Docker)
What about this case where the container was working but was consuming overhead due to an infrastructure issue? Customer hasn't done anything wrong. If you stop their containers they'll likely leave for a competitor.
You have approval in the terms of service. This is absolutely known and expected across the entire industry. It's why your employees have clauses in their contracts about respecting third party confidentiality.
I did a little research on this company. It’s related to (or wholly owned by) a Chinese entity called Labring. LinkedIn shows practically nobody related to the company other than its marketing team. Something smells incredibly fishy.
> Instead they were led thru the halls of the Capitol (by the police!) ... but the premise that they intended to overthrow the govt
You could have just said you didn't read the John Eastman memo and left it there. Or any of the Jack Smith findings. There was a coordinated top-down plan to violate the Electoral Count Act, its not even hidden. Just say you have no clue what you're talking about next time
> You could have just said you didn't read the John Eastman memo
Show me where exactly in the Eastman memo, the so called "coup plot", it calls for a group of protesters to go into the Capitol?
Spoiler: It doesn't. So it's actually you who hasn't read the memos. If anything, it shows Trump sought to remain president by legal means, a gray area at worst, but nothing to do with the "violent insurrection" claimed.
> Jack Smith findings
You mean the cases that were thrown out by the courts? And another that he closed himself? In other words, they had 4 years and found nothing. You are innocent until proven guilty, and ultimately he proved nothing.
Just say you have no clue what you're talking about next time.
> Show me where exactly in the Eastman memo, the so called "coup plot", it calls for a group of protesters to go into the Capitol?
Really cynical stuff. The Eastman memo was the blueprint on how to actually stop Biden's certification. That was the paperwork, the legal attack. January 6th was the kinetic attack.
Just because both actions were not detailed in the same piece of paper does not mean they weren't both part of a clearly coordinated action (of which the special counsel agreed).
> You mean the cases that were thrown out by the courts?
Wrong again. His findings were not thrown out. He ended the case himself because he knew Trump would shut him down anyway once back in office.
Look, I get it. This is a narrative that is very important to you. You can't believe that your side are the violent ones or your president is the lawless one. So much of this is a waste of time.
Just know that this is your narrative and it has no connection to reality.
The special counsel publicly said he had enough evidence to convince a jury that a premeditated, coordinated attempt to coup the U.S. government had occurred.
> partisan-appointed lawyer
There isn't an inch of proof that Biden interfered with either the DOJ or the special counsel. You assume that because Trump is doing this, Biden must have as well. This is the mentality of Trump himself, he thinks about how to commit crimes and get away with it so he assumes that's how everyone else behaves too. You can't actually imagine a world where people have principles and don't always act with self-interest.
It goes back to the first word and the first response I made to you, cynical. Not a word you're saying is accurate, but you don't care. Because you're just assuming the other side would lie the same way you do, if pressed.
> There is no evidence trump intended a violent insurrection
that's the thing about being responsible for violent events at a certain point your intention does not remove your culpability. Whether or not Trump meant to use his supporters to attack the Capitol is irrelevant. It happened. Also, when the riot turned violent, Trump had several hours to stop it. He chose to watch it all on television at the White House instead.
Guilty as sin.
> "Your side" literally shot at Trump
The shooter in question was a registered Republican.
> And at the end of the day..
So I prove you wrong, you move on like it never happened, rinse, repeat. This is a boring game. I don't feel like playing.
> Great. And as we have already established, that case went nowhere. Anybody can accuse someone of anything.
You've already admitted twice you did not read any of the evidence. You literally have no idea what the case is. You outsource your thinking and argumentation to a sitting Republican senator, as if their opinion on the matter counts for anything.
You created an account four days ago in order to post a series of justifications as to why the politically motivated violence of January 6th wasn't that bad, or was really just in response to other violence and therefore cannot be condemned, etc. etc.
If this is your hobby, I suggest you find a new one.
> If anything, it shows Trump sought to remain president by legal means, a gray area at worst, but nothing to do with the "violent insurrection" claimed.
You do realize John Eastman himself literally says he would lose 9-0 [1] when heard in the supreme court, admitting he is illegally violating the ECA with no sound legal argument. And he was literally disbarred for this behavior. [2]
How do you reconcile with this cognitive dissonance?
> In other words, they had 4 years and found nothing.
So you just admit you have never heard the Jack Smith report. Just say that next time, why lie?
> The way Camp David is described also does not match reality. They failed to agree on several points and therefore there was never an offer that could be rejected.
You mean Arafat's refusal for to even define infinite "right of return" or participate in any way with the Summit? While every historian (including his Arafat's wife he told to hide in Paris) said he was preparing for the second intifada?
Also its widely known that the Summit was the closest they have ever gotten outside Taba. Its a hilarious statement to think there was no "offer".
I did not say there were no offers but that there was no agreement. Both sides made offers but none was accepted by the other side. To stick with the right to return issue, the Palestinians demanded a wider right to return than Israel was willing to accept, Israel offered a more restricted right to return than the Palestinians were willing to accept. But such a failure to agree can not be easily blamed on only one party, each party could have moved their offers closer to the other side. Only if one party is obviously unreasonable in their demands or refuses to even negotiate, then you might be able to put the blame on one side.
And let me add a note on the language. At least I but probably also others easily fall into a pattern of saying that Israel makes offers and that the Palestinians reject offers and have demands. This certainly reflects the power imbalance but it also has different connotations - making offers sounds much more positive than having demands and rejecting offers. I guess it would be better to talk about proposals and accepting or not accepting them. Both sides have made proposals and they have not been accepted by the other party sounds much more balanced than saying Israel made offers that got rejected by the Palestinians while Israel dismissed demands made by the Palestinians.
> First let's acknowledge that at least 50% of those killed are civilians and many were also injured.
To be clear, this argument is more flawed. You don't know the total dead. Do you really think a militant terrorist organization in a non democratic country would immediately and/or accurately report how devastated their combat capacity is?
What are you talking about? Lebanon is a parliamentary democratic republic. Their last parliamentary elections were held in 2022, and nobody disputes the results of those election (which admittedly had a pretty low turnout). Hezbollah is a part of an (albeit weak) coalition government and has 15 seats at the parliament (with 20% of the votes). The reports are coming from the Lebanese Health ministry which is run by Firas Abiad from the Freedom Movement, a Liberal Sunni affiliated party in the ruling coalition with no army and no fighters. Hezbollah controls only 2 ministries in this government (Labor and Public works), neither of which reported on the casualty numbers.
Are you an expert on this code? Because I’ve read quite a few interviews with experts in international humanitarian law, and they pretty much agree that what Israel did was criminal.
It directly calls out Israel for its attacks against civilians in Lebanon:
> "Similarly, the UN Security Council has condemned or called for an end to alleged attacks against civilians in the context of numerous conflicts, both international and non-international, including in Afghanistan, Angola, Azerbaijan, Burundi, Georgia, Lebanon, Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Tajikistan, the former Yugoslavia and the territories occupied by Israel."
That sentence doesn't "directly" call out Israel specifically for any attacks against civilians in Lebanon. It just calls out attacks against civilians in Lebanon - which yes, would include attacks by Israel, but would also include attacks by Lebanese militant groups, including Hezbollah (i.e. in the course of the various internal conflicts there).
It would also implicitly apply to attacks wherein civilians were actually the target; expecting military operations to have zero civilian collateral casualties is unrealistic. This exploding pager/radio attack seems to have been targeted at militants specifically, not civilians.
Circulating thousands of bombs disguised as innocuous consumer devices into the public is targeting civilians. I'll add that Israel's terrorist act goes beyond those who were hit with explosions. We're all more at risk. It's a crime against humanity and the world is less safe, we all have to look at our devices differently. I will not forget that Israel did this.
Mondragon is not a worker cooperative. They have a three-tiered worked system[0] with clear hierarchical structures and differences in voting power. The temporary worker tier (largest) having no voting power whatsoever.
If you want to come up with a different word sure, I would just call whatever you defined there as traditional a corporation.
But worker cooperatives is known as "one worker, one vote" and anarcho syndicalists like Richard Wolff wouldn't consider that a worker cooperative anymore.
I don't think that's a sensible line to draw really. Permanent employees get to vote, that seems obviously more a cooperative than a classic organisation, where votes are based on the quantity of shares bought.
I think this the least constructive kind of unhinged purity-based framing. You're right about one thing -- Mondragon isn't a cooperative; it's a federation of cooperatives. I note that the paper you linked to by Kasmir points out what the author sees as failings, but from my quick reading it does not say that Mondragon co-ops are not co-ops. I think you're on that branch alone.
But also, Kasmir seems to be faulting co-op members for some lack of ideological purity, and frankly, for failing to live up to the aspirations that others have built around them, which aren't their responsibility.
> Many academics and social justice activists alike — maintain that co-ops promise a more democratic and just form of capitalism and even sow the seeds of socialism within capitalist society.
> Co-op members voted to pursue an international strategy to open these firms, and, thus, to employ low-wage laborers. Hence, we are confronted with a complicated permutation of a familiar state of affairs whereby the privilege of one strata of workers depends upon the exploitation of another.
> Compared with workers in the standard firm, co-op members were less involved in and showed less solidarity with the Basque labor movement, which at the time was part of an active leftist coalition for socialism and independence for the Basque country.
But the point of a co-op is not to further the goals of academics and activists, nor is it the responsibility of any co-op to maintain allegiance to whatever movements or institutions that the author admires. If Richard Wolff wants people to vote in the workplace, and wants those votes to mean something, doesn't that power and autonomy also necessarily mean they have the power to disagree with his views and pursue their own success and flourishing? And its success should be measured by the degree to which co-op members benefit, not by the extent that they're an ideological tool for outsiders.
Yes, one might have wanted Mondragon co-ops to create other worker-run co-ops in other countries, rather than subsidiaries. But it's hard to see how that would have actually worked. Frankly, starting factories in China by talking to workers about how important democracy is could have gotten people hurt. And these firms do still need to be able to compete and succeed in a global marketplace in which most of their peers are operating from a purely capitalist playbook. If you draw your ultra-orthodox definition of what a co-op too narrowly, you risk adopting a definition which excludes successful firms of any significant scale.
