Formally.
cultural reviewer and dabbler in stylistic premonitions
Formally.
This video is full of jarring edits which initially made me wonder if someone had cut out words or phrases to create an abbreviated version. But, then I realized there are way too many of them to have been done manually. I checked the full original video and from the few edits i manually checked it seems like it is just inconsequential pauses etc that were removed: for instance, when Linus says “the other side of that picture” in the original there is an extra “p” sound which is removed here.
Yet another irritating and unnecessary application of neural networks, I guess.
To answer your question: yes, YTA 🤦
Also, I’m deleting this post per asklemmy rule 3.
The tone which comes across in the video (linked from the other post I linked to in this post’s description) is unfortunately much less amicable than this article conveys.
the guy speaking off camera in the linked 3min 30s of the video is Ted Ts’o, according to this report about the session.
If copyright holders want to take action, their complaints will go to the ISP subscriber.
So, that would either be the entity operating the public wifi, or yourself (if your mobile data plan is associated with your name).
If you’re in a country where downloading copyrighted material can have legal consequences (eg, the USA and many EU countries), in my opinion doing it on public wifi can be rather anti-social: if it’s a small business offering you free wifi, you risk causing them actual harm, and if it is a big business with open wifi you could be contributing to them deciding to stop having open wifi in the future.
So, use a VPN, or use wifi provided by a large entity you don’t mind causing potential legal hassles for.
Note that if your name is somehow associated with your use of a wifi network, that can come back to haunt you: for example, at big hotels it is common that each customer gets a unique password; in cases like that your copyright-infringing network activity could potentially be linked to you even months or years later.
Note also that for more serious privacy threat models than copyright enforcement, your other network activities on even a completely open network can also be linked to identify you, but for the copyright case you probably don’t need to worry about that (currently).
he wouldn’t be able to inject backdoors even if he wanted to, since the source code is open
Jia Tan has entered the chat
It looks like Framework only offers entry-level Radeon GPUs.
If you want to do GPU compute in a laptop and money is no object, something from Lenovo’s Legion series of gaming laptops is probably a good choice. You can get one with an RTX 4090 in it, and the series (or many models of it, at least) appears to have reasonably good Linux support. (Disclaimer: I’ve never used one.)
i think /c/politics@lemmy.ml was removed due to redundancy with /c/worldnews@lemmy.ml more than /c/usa@lemmy.ml.
that’s not to say it couldn’t be a place for non-news-related political discussions, but in practice it mostly got posts which would fit in worldnews.
it could be restored if one or more users with a good history wants to take responsibility for moderating it.
If you’re interested in using something other than Microsoft Windows, getgnulinux.org is a good place to read about your options and how to switch.
If you use systemd’s DHCP client, since version 235 you can set Anonymize=true
in your network config to stop sending unique identifiers as per RFC 7844 Anonymity Profiles for DHCP Clients. (Don’t forget to also set MACAddressPolicy=random
.)
They only do that if you are a threat.
Lmao. Even CBP does not claim that. On the contrary, they say (and courts have so far agreed) that they can perform these types of border searches without any probable cause, and even without reasonable suspicion (a weaker legal standard than probable cause).
In practice they routinely do it to people who are friends with someone (or recently interacted with someone on social media) who they think could be a threat, as well as to people who have a name similar to someone else they’re interested in for whatever reason, or if the CBP officer just feels like it - often because of what the person looks like.
It’s nice for you that you feel confident that you won’t be subjected to this kind of thing, but you shouldn’t assume OP and other people don’t need to be prepared for it.
If they ask for a device’s password and you decline to give it to them, they will “detain” the device. See this comment for some links on the subject.
I’m pretty sure that immigration in the US can just confiscate your devices if you are not a citizen .
CBP can and does “detain” travelers’ devices at (or near) the border, without a warrant or any stated cause, even if they are US citizens.
Here is part of the notice they give people when they do:
Or just removing my biometrics?
Ultimately you shouldn’t cross the US border carrying devices or encrypted data which you aren’t prepared to unlock for DHS/CBP, unless you’re willing to lose the hardware and/or be denied entry if/when you refuse to comply.
If they decide to, you’ll be handed this: “You are receiving this document because CBP intends to conduct a border search of your electronic device(s). This may include copying and retaining data contained in the device(s). […] Failure to assist CBP in accessing the electronic device and its contents for examination may result in the detention of the device in order to complete the inspection.”
Device searches were happening a few hundred times each month circa 2009 (the most recent data i could find in a quick search) but, given other CBP trends, presumably they’ve become more frequent since then.
In 2016 they began asking some visa applicants for social media usernames, and then expanded it to most applicants in 2019, and the new administration has continued that policy. I haven’t found any numbers about how often they actually deny people entry for failing to disclose a social media account.
In 2017 they proposed adding the authority to also demand social media passwords but at least that doesn’t appear to have been implemented.
I wrote a comment here about why sealed sender does not achieve what it purports to.