Meh, essentially it’s just writing “Telecommunicationsourcesurveillance” as a single word without the spaces to indicate it’s a singular thing being referred to (in this case the concept of directly listening on the source device before encryption happens). Might seem weird I guess, but you get used to it pretty quickly.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telekommunikationsüberwachung#Quellen-Telekommunikationsüberwachung

It means “telecommunication source surveillance”.

I see you there random Krita user! Shill baby, shill!

Video Source on Bluesky

Read the policies yourself

I suggest reading this diff to the FAQs instead, paints a much clearer picture:

https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b61939b7f4310eb80c5470e

Basically removes all the language about not selling data and some about privacy. Down in the comments someone argues this is due to a narrow legal definition of that language in certain jurisdictions, but that couldn’t sound more like an empty excuse if they tried. Actually all the reactions from Mozilla I have seen on this so far sound like pure corpo PR bullshit to me.

You and i read different things.

Apparently we did.

I hated how he worded them, but his arguments at greppable and understandable are valid arguments that go beyond rust and if he can read it or not or refuses to.

I’m failing to see how Rust code is not greppable unless you don’t speak Rust.

Mixing languages in a part of a project brings complexity and is often a huge ass nono because it makes things unreadable and hard to manage on a large scale.

An argument which I would acknowledge, but if the decision to do this has been made by the group it still is weird to see it blocked by an individual.

He also argues that a c interface exists to connect 2 parts of a system. The person that changes the interface should not have to alter the users of that interface, […] So if he changes the interface, the rust team will need to fix it, specially since they are the minority.

Nobody asked Hellwig to do this, in fact Krummrich said several times they would maintain the interface consuming the C code themselves. They just want one common interface for all Rust drivers, instead of replicating the same code in each driver. Which Hellwig never gives a substantial reply to.

That also doesnt mean he can change it in whatever way without worry, it is an interface change, that needs discussions and approvals ahead of time ofc.

Again not how I’m reading that thread. As Krummrich put it:

Surely you can expect maintainers of the Rust abstraction to help with integrating API changes – this isn’t different compared to driver / component maintainers helping with integrating fundamental API changes for their affected driver / component, like you’ve mentioned videobuf2-dma stuff.

How do you figure?

The only two “technical” arguments I could see were firstly that code should

[remain] greppable and maintainable

which unless I’m missing something boils down to “I don’t speak Rust”, and secondly that

The only reason Linux managed to survive so long is by not having internal boundaries, and adding another language complely breaks this

which unless I’m missing something boils down to “I don’t speak Rust”, because ain’t nobody trying to add any other languages to the Linux code base.

Surely this can’t be the “decent technical reasoning” you are referring to? I have to admit I don’t follow kernel development that closely, but I was under the impression that integrating Rust into the code base was a long discussed initiative having the “official” blessing of the higher ups among the maintainers by now, so it seems odd to see it opposed in such harsh terms by a subsystem maintainer here:

I absolutely support using Rust in new codebase, but I do not at all in Linux.

Not what OP said over on the (now deleted) Reddit post:

So the ad was supposed to play in that black box and this is a bug?

I had Bob’s Burgers on in the background but was playing a game with my kid. The silence caught my attention, but not at first. At first I assumed it was a, “choose your commercial” thing.

After some more time I thought maybe it was asking if I was still watching, that’s when I looked up to see this

I waited, nothing. I made a verbal comment and the whole family started looking. We waited, nothing.

I grabbed my phone, snapped the pic, made the post (but didn’t actually post it), and it was still sitting there.

I guessed an answer, got it right, and the show came back

Then I hit “post” to actually make the post.

Some people say it went away on its own. Others say, like me, they had to answer, and others said even after answering it didn’t go away

I’ve had Bob’s Burgers on all morning and I’ve yet to see this again

Well if anything breaks I suspect my add/script blockers first and in like 9/10 cases that’s correct. Had turned fingerprinting resistance on since making that comment three weeks ago, and so far I didn’t run into any problems beyond theming. Although I admittedly only frequent a small set of websites.

I found this in about:config, defaults to true apparently: privacy.resistFingerprinting.randomDataOnCanvasExtract

But you have to enable privacy.resistFingerprinting for it to work first. I enabled that and now the EFF test says “randomized” for the hashes but also Lemmy went from dark to light theme somehow.

To those who missed the small disclaimer in the post, 1.0 is not properly released yet. RC4 is out, actual 1.0 release should be “sometime [this] week” (barring new bugs and regressions). See: https://blog.freecad.org/2024/11/14/freecad-1-0-release-candidate-4-is-out/

Edit: Release is out now: https://blog.freecad.org/2024/11/19/freecad-version-1-0-released/

can’t see how this can possibly be a good thing, you know it will mean funding with conditions.

Well, the things they are funding will get funded? How is that a bad thing?!

The conditions range from very broad, like “fix bugs” (curl), over somewhat specific like “improve cross-platform compatibility and the Linux RNG” (Wireguard), to very specific like “create a test-suite and drive development on the Fediverse account migration functionality” (ActivityPub).

You can see more for yourself at https://www.sovereign.tech/tech

All of these seem to be rather tame conditions that are just there to ensure the funds get used in the way they were intended to be used. And I don’t really see how that gives the STF any sort of direct control over these projects, while it gives those projects resources to achieve more than they might have otherwise. There are no long-term funding models that would enable implicit control over these projects.

android auto

First I heard of this, but since it seems to be just some software that runs on the hardware of car manufacturers it seems rather unlikely. But very theoretically possible, if the car manufacturer was using default process scheduling in a CPU constrained machine and now switches to real-time scheduling in an update. But that was possible for years before this news, the code has just been mainlined to the default kernel now. If the car manufacturer cared about that they would probably have done it already with a patched kernel.

And further from that, maybe if Youtube’s Chief Enshittification Officer is against it then taking 23andme private might actually be the best thing to do?

Oh yeah, can’t use the same IP range as your LAN, that will lead to problems. :D Glad it’s fixed.

Out of curiosity, does forwarding work now without the output (-o) command in PostUp?

Like I said in another thread on this post, I’m pretty sure that’s because they are forwarding input but not output in the PostUp rules. Setting a /32 in AllowedIPs works fine for me.

What are you trying to say? That reply also shows AllowedIPs set to a /32 on the server side.

I don’t think that’s what the setting does. Anyway, I have them set to a /32 IP in my server config and it works nonetheless. I get full access to the /24 behind the server from the client.

You have ALL traffic being routed over Wireguard here.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it the other way around? All Wireguard traffic is forwarded to the local interface.

I think the problem might be your PostUp/PostDown lines have an in-interface (-i) but are missing an out-interface (-o) for the forwarding. Try this:

PostUp   = iptables -A FORWARD -i %i -j ACCEPT; iptables -A FORWARD -o %i -j ACCEPT; iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o ens3 -j MASQUERADE
PostDown = iptables -D FORWARD -i %i -j ACCEPT; iptables -D FORWARD -o %i -j ACCEPT; iptables -t nat -D POSTROUTING -o ens3 -j MASQUERADE