“Violat[ing] DRM policies” isn’t “misuse.” DRM itself is misuse of the machine owner’s property.
Anyway, you might have already foreclosed the possibility by talking about it on this Lemmy account if it can be traced back to you, but my suggestion would’ve been to release it as open source anonymously.
Indefinitely.
They need to be on Mastodon specifically.
Their audience is the kind of person who still buys paper magazines, so…
I’m seconding the request for a writeup.
I second the recommendation for TP-Link running OpenWRT (that’s the important part).
I’ve been using a few Archer C7s for going on a decade at this point. (So long that they went from “OpenWRT” to “LEDE” to back to “OpenWRT”, LOL!) They’ve been working fine that whole time, and the only thing that annoys me about them is that they’re a funny shape instead of being rack-mountable.
A human driver probably would’ve heard him shouting and stopped to fix the problem.
But downside of a M series is either you run macOS or Asahi Linux and nothing else yet.
I’m OOTL; what is it about Apple Silicon Macs that apparently make them such trouble to support? If one distro can manage it, what’s stopping that code from being upstreamed to the mainline kernel etc.?
He said “sub $300” \s
Hmm… maybe I’m the one misremembering. It might’ve been a very late model as I remember it being relatively low-end at the time my parents bought it (they had thought computers were “buy it for life” things when they bought me the fanciest-model 286 a few years before and were real salty about obsolescence), but I’m also looking at pictures online and all the ones I can find that resemble it are, indeed, not ATX.
I don’t remember the exact model, but it was a Packard Bell in a desktop (horizontal) form-factor case like one of these:
(Sources: https://vintage-packard-bell.fandom.com/wiki/3x3_v3, https://vintage-packard-bell.fandom.com/wiki/4x4_v4)
I feel like it might have been the kind with 2 5.25" drive bays, but as I said, it was relatively cheap and didn’t come with an optical drive to start with so it probably should’ve been the smaller/cheaper one.
I was only a kid at the time; maybe I confused the reset switch for the power button.
Because just because the hardware was ATX, doesn’t mean the software worked right.
I upgraded my 486 to add a CD-ROM drive in 1995 so that I could install the newly-released Windows 95 from CD-ROM.
I wasn’t even thinking about the screen message in OP’s pic, BTW. I was thinking about how the power button on my 486’s case was wired to the motherboard, not the power supply directly, so computers must’ve been ATX by then.
Jeez, between that and the alt text…
An image of an old computer, probably from the '80s or '90s
…y’all are making me feel old because you don’t even know what you’re looking at.
That’s a computer from at least the second half of the '90s, if not early 2000s, because it has a CD-ROM drive. That also means it’s an ATX with a software power button, not AT with a power switch.
(I guess it’s theoretically possible somebody could have upgraded an early-'90s AT computer to add a CD-ROM, but so unlikely I’m willing to discount the possibility.)
Coal is usually not very toxic, so this will be fine.
LOLWUT? Coal tailings are some nasty shit.
Put it on a .ch (Switzerland) domain, LOL
But maybe you’re imagining a world where that question is moot—in a world where there’s no separation of users and [providers].
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m imagining. (Any tips on how I could’ve made that clearer from my first comment?)
Disputes between users are “drama.” Disputes involving instance admins and discussions of defederation are matters of fediverse governance.
That’s how federation works with[out] requiring a direct connection from every instance to every other instance. My instance can connect to yours to get your content, but also the content from all other instances that you federate with. And vice-versa.
So what? That’s like saying ISPs should require Section 230 to avoid liability because they route packets. We’re talking about legality: it’s stuff like intent and responsibility that matters, not the technical details. Each instance owner still gets to decide which other instances they want to federate with; some ‘middle hop’ in that connection is irrelevant.
The fundamental issue that Section 230 is designed to address is the separation between the users posting the content and the platform owners who control who sees it and the moral hazard that creates. If you eliminate the separation, there’s nowhere left for the moral hazard to exist.
I’m usually a big fan of the EFF, but it’s wrong on this one. If you decentralize to the limit – i.e., such that each user is running their own instance for themselves – it becomes okay for the service to become liable for the user’s speech because the user and the service owner are one in the same. In reality, (extremely) federated social media is the only kind that can survive without Section 230 and thus repealing it entirely would be a win for the Fediverse.
(You could argue “but users won’t go to the trouble of running their own instance,” but to that I’d say “they will if the law doesn’t give them any other choice, short of not participating at all.”)
Whenever you see somebody linking to the user they’re replying to at the beginning of their comment, you’re likely seeing somebody posting from Mastodon because their UI is user-feed-oriented instead of thread-oriented.