• 21 Posts
  • 92 Comments
Joined 8 months ago
cake
Cake day: September 11th, 2025

help-circle
  • I have a little Proxmox installation running a VM on a 256GB NVMe, which as you can imagine is tight

    Not as tight as I was imagining a 256 MB installation to be.

    I know nothing about promox, but because it’s quiet in here, I imagine cloning the original drive for the original system then expanding it to take over the whole drive is the easier thing to do, it’s a fairly standard process and generally nondestructive because you can just put the old drive back in if something breaks.

    So, I would probably go e) unless you really want to set everything up again from scratch (which is sometimes nice to do)




  • I’ve been in many a Chinese Didi. Much like the cheaper Teslas the hardware in these cars is exceptional for the price, but nothing else about it really stands up past the first glance.

    Software is distracting and UI is terrible. I’m sure privacy is nonexistent which is scary when you consider the car can see and hear everything you do and know everywhere you go.

    Would I buy one? No. But I welcome more competition in the EV space, and something at an introductory price point that may get some skeptics to try something new.


  • Hmmm… Interesting one to think about, even as someone who hates AI

    According to the complaint, Ikner, then a student at FSU, shared with ChatGPT images of firearms he had acquired. The chatbot then allegedly explained how to use them, “telling him the Glock had no safety, that it was meant to be fired ‘quick to use under stress’ and advising him to keep his finger off the trigger until he was ready to shoot.”

    At one point, the lawsuit alleges, ChatGPT said that it’s much more likely for a shooting to gain national attention “if children are involved, even 2-3 victims can draw more attention.” Later, on the day of the shooting, the lawsuit says, Ikner asked about what “the legal process, sentencing, and incarceration outlook” would be.

    OpenAI has pushed back on the claim that its product holds responsibility for the shooting. “Last year’s mass shooting at Florida State University was a tragedy, but ChatGPT is not responsible for this terrible crime,” OpenAI spokesperson Drew Pusateri told NBC News in an email. Pusateri wrote that the company worked with law enforcement after learning of the incident and continues to do so.

    “In this case, ChatGPT provided factual responses to questions with information that could be found broadly across public sources on the internet, and it did not encourage or promote illegal or harmful activity,” he added. “ChatGPT is a general-purpose tool used by hundreds of millions of people every day for legitimate purposes. We work continuously to strengthen our safeguards to detect harmful intent, limit misuse, and respond appropriately when safety risks arise.”

    Should Google be liable for giving tips about how to use a gun / which killings get the most attention?

    What about your local SearXNG instance?

    Is a chat bot a glorified search engine or something different? Which query should have crossed the line for reporting?

    This sort of thing is so murky to me, and in the same realm as the (BS, IMO) “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” argument, but the line in the sand feels a lot harder to draw here, in my brain at least.












  • At worst, it’s just fine (Mozilla just uses it internally to replace or supplement its old and incomplete Tracker Blocking system, which never gets the same scrutiny).

    I think you’re right but I’m sure they can fuck it up a lot worse than that if they really want to. AI ad detection? Sponsored blocking? New RCE pathways?

    I think its much more likely than not a step forward, and I welcome the change, but recent Mozilla decisions have me watching closely.


  • There appears to be no legitimate end to this one, which is wild

    As long as DNS blocking stops some subset of users from reaching pirate sites, the court ruled, it’s “proportionate.” Under that line of thinking, any measure that inconveniences even a fraction of would-be pirates is legally justified, no matter how much collateral damage it causes for everyone else.

    The court’s core reasoning — that any entity technically capable of blocking must do so, that circumvention doesn’t make blocking disproportionate, and that the “neutral and passive” function of an intermediary is irrelevant — creates a legal framework that can reach basically anything. If a DNS resolver can be conscripted because it’s “in a position to help,” what about browsers? What about operating systems? What about CDNs, or cloud hosting providers, or certificate authorities? The logic has no brake pedal. Every layer of the internet stack is, in some sense, “in a position to help” block access to content. The question the court’s reasoning cannot answer is: where does it end?

    Left off their list is hardware, should your router and modem deny IP requests to known servers? Even if they’re on shared hardware? What about the networking card in your PC?