litchralee
@litchralee@sh.itjust.works
- Comment on What host names do you use? 2 days ago:
I select hostnames drawn from the ordinal numerals of whatever language I happen to be trying to learn. Recently, it was Japanese so the first host was named “ichiro”, the second as “jiro”, the third as “saburo”.
These are the romanized spellings of the original kanji characters: 一郎, 二郎, and 三郎. These aren’t the ordinal numbers per-se (eg first, second, third) but are an old way of assigning given names to male children. They literally mean “first son”, “second son”, “third son”.
Previously, I did French ordinal numbers, and the benefit of naming this way is that I can enumerate a countably infinite number of hosts lol
- Comment on How to get a unique MAC/DHCP IP for a Docker/Podman container without MACVLAN? 2 days ago:
Kubernetes does indeed have a learning curve, but it’s also strangely accommodating for single-node setups which can then be expanded only by adding components, rather than tearing the whole thing down and starting again. In that sense, it’s a great learning platform towards managing larger or commercial clusters, if simply to get experience with the unique challenges inherent to scaling up.
But that might be more of a !homelab@lemmy.ml point of view haha
- Comment on How to get a unique MAC/DHCP IP for a Docker/Podman container without MACVLAN? 2 days ago:
Ah, now I understand your setup. To answer the title question, I’ll have to be a bit verbose with how I think Incus behaves, so that the Docker behavior can be put into context. Bear with me.
br0 has the same MAC as the eth0 interface
This behavior stood out to me, since it’s not a fundamental part of Linux bridging. And it turns out that this might be a systemd-specific thing, since creating a bridge is functionally equivalent to a software switch, where every port of the switch has its own MAC, and all “clients” to that switch also have their own MAC. If I had to guess, systemd does this so that traffic from the physical interface (eth0) that passes directly through to br0 will have the MAC from the physical network, thus making it easier to understand traffic flows in Wireshark, for example. I personally can’t agree with this design choice, since it obfuscates what Linux is really doing vis-a-vis a software switch. But reusing this MAC here is merely a weird side-effect and doesn’t influence what Incus is doing.
Instead, the reason Incus needs the bridge interface is precisely because a physical interface like eth0 will not automatically forward frames to subordinate interfaces. Whereas for a virtual switch, that’s the default. To that end, the bridge interface is combined with virtual ethernet (veth) interfaces – another networking primitive in Linux – to each container that Incus manages. The behavior of a veth is akin to a point-to-point network cable, plus the NICs on both ends. That means a veth always consists of a pair of interfaces, where traffic into one end comes out the other, and each interface has its own MAC address. Functionally, this is the networking equivalent of a bidirectional pipe.
By combining a bridge (ie a virtual swich) with veth (ie virtual cables), we have a full Layer 2 network topology that behaves identically as if it were a physical bridge with physical cables. Thus, your DHCP server is none the wiser when it sends and receives BOOTP traffic for assigning an IP address. This is the most flexible way of constructing a virtual network within Linux, since it has feature-parity with physical networks: there is no Macvlan or Ipvlan or tunneling or whatever needed to make this work. Linux is just operating as a switch, with all the attendant flexibility. This architecture is what Calico – a network framework for Kubernetes – uses, in order to achieve scalable, Layer 3 connectivity to containers; by default, Kubernetes does not depend on Layer 2 to function.
OK, so we now understand why Incus does things the way it does. For Docker, when using the Macvlan driver, the benefits of the bridge+veth model are not achieved, because Macvlan – although being a feature of Linux networking – is something which is implemented against an individual interface on the host. Compare this to a bridge, which is a standalone concept and thus can exist with or without any interfaces to the host: when Linux is actually used as a switch – like on many home routers – the host itself can choose to have zero interfaces attached to the switch, meaning that traffic flows through the box, rather than to the box as a destination.
So when creating subordinate interfaces using Macvlan, we get most of the bridging behavior as bridge+veth but the Macvlan implementation in the kernel means that outbound traffic from a subordinate interface always get put onto the outbound queue of the parent interface. This makes it impossible for a subordinate interface to exchange traffic with the host itself, by design. Had they chosen to go the extra mile, they would have just reinvented a version of bridge+veth that is excessively niche.
We also need to discuss the behavior of Docker networks. Similar to Kubernetes, containers managed by Docker mandate having IP connectivity (Layer 3). But whereas Kubernetes will not start a container unless an IPAM (IP Address Management) plugin explicitly provides an IP address, Docker’s legacy behavior is to always generate a random IP address from a default range, unless given an IP explicitly. So even though bridge+veth or Macvlan will imbue Layer 2 connectivity to a DHCP server to obtain an IP address, Docker is eager to provide an IP, just so the container has one from the very start. The distinction between Docker and Kubernetes+Calico is thus one of actual utility: by getting an address from Calico’s IPAM, Kubernetes knows that the address will actual work for networking, because Calico also creates/manages a network. Whereas Docker has no problem assigning an IP but not actually checking if this IP can be used on that network; it’s almost a pro-forma exercise.
I will say this about early Docker: although they led the charge for making containers useful, how they implemented networking was very strange and led to a whole class of engineers who now have a deep misunderstanding of how real networks operate, and that only causes confusion when scaling up to orchestrated container frameworks like Kubernetes that depend on rigorous understanding of networking and Linux implementations. But all the same, Docker was more interested in getting things working without external dependencies like DHCP servers, so there’s some sense in mandating an IP locally, perhaps because they didn’t yet envision that containers would talk to the physical network.
The plugin that you mentioned operates by requesting a DHCP-assigned address for each container, but within the Docker runtime. And once it obtains that address, it then statically assigns it to the container. So from the container’s perspective, it’s just getting an IP assigned to it, not aware that DHCP has happened at all. The plugin is thus responsible for renewing that IP periodically. It’s a kludge to satisfy Docker’s networking requirements while still using DHCP-assigned addresses. But Docker just doesn’t play well with Layer 2 physical networks, because otherwise the responsibility for running the DHCP client would fall to the containers; some containers might not even have a DHCP client to run.
If I’m missing something about MACVLAN that makes DHCP work for Docker, let me know!
Sadly, there just isn’t a really good way to do this within Docker, and it’s not the kernel’s fault. Other container runtimes like containerd – which relies wholly on the standard CNI plugins and thus doesn’t have Docker’s networking footguns – have no problem with containers running their own DHCP client on a bridged network. But for any container manager to handle DHCP assignment without the container’s cooperation always leads to the same kludge as what Docker did. And that’s probably why no major container manager does that natively; it’s hard to solve.
I do wish there could be something like Incus’ hassle-free solution for Docker or Podman.
Since your containers were able to get their own DHCP addresses from a bridged network in Incus, can you still run the DHCP client on those containers to override Docker’s randomly-assigned local IP address? You’d have to use the bridge network driver in Docker, since you also want host-container traffic to work and we know Macvlan won’t do that. But even this is a delicate solution, since if DHCP fails to assign an address, then your container still has the Docker-assigned address but it won’t be usable on the bridged network.
The best solution I’ve seen for containers on DHCP-assigned networks is to not use DHCP assignment at all. Instead, part of the IP subnet is carved out, a region which is dedicated only for containers. So in a home IPv4 network like 192.168.69.0/24, the DHCP server would be restricted to only assigning 192.168.69.2 through 192.168.69.127, and then Docker would be allowed to allocate the addresses from 192.168.69.128 to 192.168.69.254 however it wants, with a subnet mask of 255.255.255.0. This mask allows containers to speak directly to addresses in the entire 192.168.69.0/24 range, which includes the rest of the network. The other physical hosts do the same, allowing them to connect to containers.
This neatly avoids interacting with the DHCP server, but at a loss of central management and it splits the allocatable addresses into smaller parts, potentially causing exhaustion in one side while the other has spare addresses. Yet another reason to adopt IPv6 as the standard for containers, but I digress. For Kubernetes and similar orchestration frameworks, DHCP isn’t even considered since the orchestrator must have full internal authority to assign addresses with its chosen IPAM plugin.
TL;DR: if your containers are like mini VMs, DHCP assignment is doable. But if they’re pre-packaged appliances, then only sadness results when trying to use DHCP.
- Comment on How to get a unique MAC/DHCP IP for a Docker/Podman container without MACVLAN? 2 days ago:
I want to make sure I’ve understood your initial configuration correctly, as well as what you’ve tried.
In the original setup, you have eth0 as the interface to the rest of your network, and eth0 obtains a DHCP-assigned address from the DHCP server. Against eth0, you created a bridge interface br0, and your host also obtains a DHCP-assigned address in br0. Then in Incus, you created a Macvlan network against br0, such that each containers against this network will be assigned a random MAC, and all the container Ethernet frames will be bridged to br0, which in-turn bridges to eth0. In this way, all containers can each receive a DHCP-assigned address. Also, each container can send traffic to the br0 IP address, to access services running on the host. Do I have that right?
For your Docker attempt, it looks like you created a Docker network using the Macvlan driver, but it wasn’t clear to me if the parent interface here was eth0 or br0, if you still have br0. When you say “I have MACVLAN working”, can you describe which aspect is working? Unique MAC assignment? Bridged traffic to/from the containers or the network?
I’m not very familiar with Incus, but I’m entirely in the dark about this shoddy plugin you mentioned for DHCP and Macvlan to work. So far as I’m aware, modern Docker Engine uses the CNI plugins when creating networks, so the “-d macvlan” parameter specifies which CNI plugin will load. Since this would all be at Layer 2, I don’t see why a plugin is needed to support DHCP – v4 or v6? – traffic.
And the host cannot contact the container due to the MACVLAN method
Correct, but this is remedied by what’s to follow…
Can I make another bridge device off of br0 and bind to that one host-like?
Yes, this post seems to do exactly that: kcore.org/2020/08/18/macvlan-host-access/
I can always put a Docker/podman inside of an Incus container, but I’d like to avoid onioning if possible.
I think you’re right to avoid multiple container management tools, if simply because it’s generally unnecessary. Although it kinda looks like Incus is more akin to Proxmox, in that it supports managing VMs and containers, whereas Podman and Docker only manage containers, which is further still distinct from the container runtime (eg CRI-O, containerd, Docker Engine (which uses containerd under the hood)).
- Comment on When fighter jets are scrambled to intercept a plane for security reasons, what can they actually do? 4 days ago:
Movies would have people believe that the jets are there to shoot down the errant jet. During the Cold War, this was entirely plausible and did happen. But more commonly, when a fighter jet is sent to intercept an unknown aircraft – perhaps one that has entered restricted or prohibited airspace – it may be just to have eyes on the situation.
Airspace is huge. The vastness of the air is like the vastness of the sea. Sometimes it’s an advantage because there’s fewer things to hit. But on the flip side, if an aircraft needs assistance, there might not be anyone for many miles in any direction. As for what an assisting fighter jet can do, the first is to establish navigational accuracy. History has shown that airplanes can get lost, and sometimes unfortunately end up hitting mountains or running into known obstacles or weather. A second aircraft can confirm the first aircraft’s position, since two separate aircraft having navigational problems is exceptionally rare.
The next thing is having eyes on the outside of the aircraft. Things like a damaged engine on a jetliner aren’t visible to the pilots, but there’s a chance the passengers or cabin crew can look. But damage to a rudder is impossible to see from inside the aircraft; I’m not yet aware of a commercial aircraft equipped with a tail-viewing camera.
Finally, if it should come to it, an assisting aircraft can be the pilot’s eyes, if for some reason the pilots can no longer see out their windscreen. At this point, the flight be alreybe doomed but it may help avoid additional casualties on the ground. I’m reminded of the flight where volcanic ash sandblasted the windshield, or when a cargo jet had a fire onboard which filled the cockpit with thick smoke.
To be clear, neither incident was aides by fighter jets, but having an external set of eyes to give directions would have made things a little bit easier for the pilots.
- Comment on What RSS feeds are you subscribed to? 5 days ago:
Ctrl Alt Speech: a podcast by TechDirt’s Mike Masnick (who coined the term “Streisand Effect”) about online speech and content regulation, and how it’s not at all a simple nor straightforward task.
Feed: feeds.buzzsprout.com/2315966.rss
Soatok’s Dhole Moments: a blog on cryptography and computer security, with in-depth algorithm discussions interspersed with entertaining furry art. SFW. Also find Soatok on Mastodon.
Feed: soatok.blog/feed/
Molly White’s Citation Needed newsletter: critiques of cryptocurrency, regulations, policies, and news. Also find Molly White on Mastodon. She also has a site dedicated to cryptocurrency disasters.
- Comment on Does 'attempted murder' require a viable method? 6 days ago:
IANAL. In the USA, the majority of US States adopt some definition of murder based on the age-old definition from English common law. But each state modifies the definition to include or exclude things, to the point that discussing even just a single state’s definition would be a mini law course. However, some generalities can be drawn using just the age-old definition.
Murder is generally defined as having four elements, or components which the trier-of-fact (eg a jury) must find in order for culpability to attach. Attempted murder is the absence of the fourth element. This is not rigorous, since again, we’d have to identify the exact jurisdiction and the question didn’t indicate one. Anyone who has:
- Has performed or omitted some act…
- Which is the proximate cause of death…
- With malice aforethought…
- And the victim dies…
Is guilty of the crime of murder. As a minor discussion of these points, the first element means that positively doing something (eg cutting a safety strap) and not doing something (eg not turning off the electricity to exposed wires) can be parts of a murder charge. For the second element, the term “proximate cause” is a legal term deeply entwined with “foreseeability” and whether a chain of causation or liability connects the act with the death. A Rube Goldberg-esque manner of death might fail the proximate cause element, unless the setup was purposely concocted precisely to kill. Likewise, proximate cause isn’t always the last element in a chain of events, since that would mean a victim would be their own killer for walking into firing range of a sniper laying-in-wait.
The third element, malice aforethought, refers to the mental state of the accused. That is, did they genuinely intend great harm and/or death upon the victim. Different jurisdictions vary on whether an intent-to-merely-assault that leads to death can be charged with murder, and often times that’s what second-degree murder is used for. Mental state is not a binary quantity either, as different “levels” of mental state correspond to different charges, all else the same. Malice aforethought is the worst sort, corresponding to a killer that plans a victim’s death, or acts with utter disregard for any victim’s life. Lesser levels might be charged as “reckless homicide”, “negligent homicide”, etc.
Finally, the fourth element for murder is that the victim must actually die. If the victim is immediately dead and this is verifiable using the body, this is easy to prove in court. But if the victim lingers, the legal jurisdiction might adopt a “year and a day” rule, since if the victim doesn’t die quickly, then it’s assault/battery rather than murder. Or if the victim is believed to be dead but it can’t be proven – eg victim’s body never recovered – then the defense might try to argue that the victim is simply missing but alive.
</ background>
OK, so to the question. You’ve described a scenario where someone has: 1) affirmatively pressed the kill button, 2) which is believed to result in person X’s death, 3) with full intention to kill person X, but 4) person X does not die. At even a passing glance, this is not murder since person X is alive. But does it meet the first three elements to support attempted murder? Probably not, at least without additional details.
Element #1 and #3 are present, but it’s element #2 that will be problematic. It isn’t sufficient to just tell someone that “yes, this button will absolutely kill person X”. At the very minimum, the accused needs to at least be aware of the mechanism that person X will be killed, and how that relates to the “kill button”. An implied method-of-death would suffice, such as when ordering a skilled archer to assassinate a rival. Even though the accused just says “go kill him”, the accused is aware that the archer is capable of killing using their bow-and-arrow. Whereas ordering a toddler to kill the rival would be presumed as nonsensical.
If, however, the button was already demo’d to the accused as killing some other (pretend) victim first – meaning the accused has seen the manner that the “button press” leads to death – that might establish proximate cause, even if it’s not obvious what the cause of death was. If the pretend victim clutches their chest and falls down, it’s plausible to the accused that the button’s mechanism somehow involves a pacemaker malfunction. If instead the accused is told specifically that the bombs on the victim’s car will go off, then that’s a more solid establishment of element #2, although even bombs do not reliably detonate.
But there’s even more: just because a set of circumstances arguably meets the three elements for attempted murder, it’s ultimately the trier-of-fact that will have to believe it. That is to say, it would be tough to convince a jury that the accused had “absolute” certainty that the button would kill, which also affects element #1. Unless the accused admits to that after-the-fact, that’s tough to prove. What is illegal according to the elements of a crime is not the same as what will easily convince a jury.
If it seems like this elements – or really all the elements – of murder are fact-intensive, that’s because they are. Killing is as old as humans are, and how it’s been performed and how it’s been regulated/abolished has evolved over history. Modern legal scholars have to figure out how things like stochastic terrorism/killings or life-affecting afflictions (eg HIV/AIDS) should be fitted into the system of written law, because modern law requires writing down the crimes beforehand.
- Comment on Is there any handbooks for warning lights on cars/machinery 1 week ago:
To be clear, this is about exterior mounted warning lights, and not like a caution lamp on a control panel, right?
- Comment on What happened to cylindrical plugs? 1 week ago:
My primary complaint with the F-type connector is that it only does half the job: a proper connector should make a reliable and consistent mechanical and electrical coupling. For the latter, the F-type fails miserably, on account of having no protruding pin of its own: reusing the center conductor as a “pin” is at best slapdash, and at worst fails to account for inconsistent conductor cross-sections.
When affixing an F-type connector onto a new segment of coax, unless great care has been taken to slice the cable cleanly, the center conductor often ends up with a arrow-shaped tip which also flattens the round cross-section into an oval. This tip is now a minor danger to people, in addition to no longer being assumed as round. This certainly doesn’t help with reliable mating later.
Furthermore, a solid copper tip is not ideal for a connector, unless the opposite coupler that grasps the tip is made of copper as well. But copper can’t be used to make springy receivers, so inevitably another metal must be used. But the prevailing composition of contacts for connectors are either solid brass or are plated (eg gold). But a sharp copper tip will end up scratching the mating surfaces over time.
And this is just the start of the F-type’s follies. The user experience of turning a 7/16" fine thread in narrow spaces is exhausting. With no consistent specs for the F-type, some cheaper connectors have the thinnest possible hex head to fit a wrench on. Compression F-type is better, but then we have to compare to other connectors.
In the broadcast and laboratory spaces, BNC is the go-to connector, with easy mating and quarter-turn engagement. It also comes in 50 and 75 Ohm variants (albeit confusingly). In telecoms, the SMA connector is used for its small size, and larger coax might use the beefy N connector. Some of these variants are even waterproof. Solderless is an option. All these connectors are rated by their manufacturers for a minimum number of mating events.
In all circumstances, according to this chart, the RF performance of BNC, SMA, and N are superior to F-type, which has only ever been used for TV, CCTV, and certain low-frequency clocking systems. I’m not sure what you mean by “rated to absurd frequencies”, but surely SMA’s (up to) 25 GHz rating would be tremendously and wildly insane by comparison to 1-2 GHz for F-type.
So that’s my beef. It’s just a bad connector, used only because it’s cheap.
- Comment on What happened to cylindrical plugs? 1 week ago:
I’m not sure how hard you’re rotating a 3.5 mm cable, but yes, that sound is the sudden making and breaking of the contacts, which it’s not meant to do. It will wear down the surfaces, even if the 3.5 mm tip is gold plated, since the gold is for anti-corrosion not for anti-friction.
But, the notion of cylinder housings for connectors has not died. After all, large cylinders are easy to grasp. Here is one very beefy example, often called the California Standard connector due to its use for Hollywood movie productions. This is a waterproof, twist-lock connector that also suppresses arcs if you unplug it while it’s still in. It heavy enough to probably also double as a blackjack for self-defense lol
- Comment on What happened to cylindrical plugs? 1 week ago:
A cylindrical connector would be fine for connecting one or two conductors. But more than that and it starts to become a nightmare to design, and even worse to build and use reliably. Classic examples include the venerable RCA connector, the BNC connector for radio signals, and IMO the worst connector to ever exist, the F-type connector used for TV coaxial cable.
With just two conductors, a cylinder can have have a concentric shape, where the inside is a pin and the outside is a shell. But you’ll notice that although all these connectors are circular, they’re hardly designed to rotate while attached. You generally have to remove or at least loosen them before trying to turn them. Or you still try it and the TV picture might flicker a bit. The problem is one of electrical contact.
The engineers that make connectors go through painstaking efforts to get the conductive surfaces to align – or “mate” as they say – because if they don’t, the signal quality drops like a rock. It’s already hard enough to get cheap connectors to reliably align, but now you want them to move relative to each other? That’s tough to build, and moving surfaces will eventually wear down.
Even worse is that circular shapes tend to have poorer mating, because manufacturing tolerances for curves is wider than tolerances for flat surfaces. We actually don’t want to make round contacts, if a rectangular shape would suffice. Flat contacts are simpler to produce and generally more reliable [citation needed].
But even more intractable is the matter of matching the pinouts. Here is the pinout when looking at the connector of a USB C cord:
USB C pinout when looking straight at a USB C cord
Even without understanding what each pin does, it’s noticeable that certain pins are the same whether you flip the connector over. In fact, they even label them that way: pin A12 on the top-right is also B12 on the bottom-left. The most damaging scenario is if USB 5v power was sent down the wrong pin, but it’s very clear that the VBUS pins – which are the 5v power – will always be in the same place no matter the cord orientation.
The only pins which are different upon inversion are the data lines – anything with a + or - in the name – or certain control signals which are intentionally paired with their opposite signal (eg CC1 and CC2). The USB C designers could have packed way more data pins if they didn’t have to duplicate half the pins to allow flipping the connector over. But that design choice has made USB C easier to use. A fair tradeoff.
And that’s the crux of it: in engineering, we are always dealing with tradeoffs, either for performance, cost to produce, ease of use, future compatibility, and a host of other concerns. Wanting a cylindrical connector could certainly be a design goal. But once it starts causing problems with alignment or manufacturing, there will inevitably be pushback. And it’s clear that of all the popular connectors used today, few are cylindrical.
Heck, even for DC power, the barrel connector has given way to more popular designs, like the Anderson PowerPole or the XT family of connectors, because the market needed high-current connectors for drones and Li-po batteries. Granted, the XT connectors are basically two cylindrical connectors side-by-side haha.
- Comment on Are US governors allowed to maintain their own foreign policy and relations, without control of the president or federal government? 1 week ago:
Starting with the title question, US States are bound by the federal constitution, which explicitly denies certain powers from the States, found mostly in Article I Section 10. The first clause even starts with foreign policy:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
In this context, the terms “treaty, alliance, or confederation” are understood to mean some organization which would compete with the union that is the United States of America. That is to say, a US State cannot join the United Kingdom as a fifth country, for example. Whereas agreements between states – the normal meaning of “treaty” – is controlled by the third clause, which refers to such agreements as “compacts”.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Compacts are only allowed if the US Congress also approves. This is what allows the western US States, the federal government, and Mexico to all agree on how to (badly) divide the water of the Colorado River.
So if foreign policy is meant to include diplomatic relationships, military exercises, setting tariffs, and things like that, then no, the US States are severely constrained in doing foreign policy. The diplomatic relations part is doable, where state-elected officials can go to foreign countries to advocate for trade and tourism. But those officials must not violate the federal Logan Act, which prohibits mediating an active dispute involving the USA, since that’s the US Secretary of State’s job. For example, it would be unlawful if a US State governor tried to mediate a prisoner exchange with a country that the USA has engaged the military against.
For your other question about what US States are, the answer to the question changed significantly in the 1860s. During that decade, the federal constitution gained three amendments, with the 14th Amendment being the most significantly for the notion of statehood. That Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses gave life to the notion of “incorporation”, which is that the US Constitution’s limits on the federal government also applied to the several States.
Before the 1860s, US States were indeed closer to countries in a trading, monetary, and foreign policy alliance. Some US States even had official religions, since the First Amendment’s prohibition on endorsing religion only applied to the federal government. But post 1860s, it was firmly established that the federal government isn’t just some economic committee, but an actual representative body, one whose laws will trounce state laws.
The best example I can point to is how broad the federal government exercises its “interstate commerce” powers. Basically, if something has anything remotely to do with crossing a state border, the feds can write laws on that topic. That was extremely rare pre 1860s, and now it’s basically the norm. Airspace, telecoms, and railroads are all matters which the federal government asserts its authority, and if US States were countries, they might object to the feds. But they’re not countries, so they don’t wield that power.
- Comment on Will LibreWolf be affected by Firefox's new Terms of Service? 1 week ago:
These Terms only apply to the Executable Code version of Firefox, not the Firefox source code.
www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/
Thus, the answer turns in whether any Firefox binaries are used or distributed with LibreWolf. On their website, I don’t even see any binaries for LibreWolf that they host, except the Windows binary. For all other OS, they refer to that OS’s package manager. But we’ve still, there is nothing to suggest that any Mozilla-compiled binaries are in LibreWolf.
The answer appears to be: no.
- Comment on See highest paying hourly jobs in my area 1 week ago:
Setting aside the question of data availability, do job offers even have a strong association to post codes or even specific cities or regions anymore? On one end, some jobs are definitely location-based, such as in-home hospice work. In the middle would be jobs open to an entire area, such as construction worker. And at the opposite end are remote jobs which anyone in the country can apply for, and that’s only due to HR not wanting to deal with employment laws in foreign countries; fully-remote software jobs can be like this.
- Comment on Why have an adversarial legal system? 2 weeks ago:
The other comments have covered a lot of the background and variances throughout the world. But what I’ll add is that few countries are purely in one camp or the other. To use the USA as an example, criminal cases are adversarial, in the sense that the defense attorney will duke it out with the government’s attorney whether someone goes to prison.
For civil cases like a contract dispute, the procedure is closer to an inquisition system, although with the judge still merely presiding over the process. But attorneys in a USA civil case can depose witnesses, much like how (I think) a European judge-led inquisition would call a witness, and similar to how British coroners conduct an inquest (if murder mystery depictions on the BBC are accurate).
Perhaps the full thrust of the inquisition style can be found in USA federal agencies, whose rulemaking capacity requires asking direct question to subject matter experts in a public forum, one which eventually leads to a determination on some germane topic, often enacting secondary legislation at the same time. Americans might not necessarily call such an action as a “ruling”, but evidence was taken, all sides were heard, and even public comment was accepted, before rendering a decision.
- Comment on How do I make a phone call to (not from) an elevator speaker, just like what a debt collector once did? 2 weeks ago:
I mean, you’re still using a resource that was provisioned only for emergency use. The rough analogy is borrowing the exterior-mounted fire extinguisher of your apartment building to use it as a temporary paperweight, and then putting it back after two minutes.
Your use of it in this way might be benign, but if everyone is doing that, someone will eventually mess up and that resource won’t be there when it’s truly needed. Plus, what is the objective from calling your own elevator while you’re in it? Just yell lol
I don’t mean to sound boring, but while there’s a time and place for pranks and fun in an elevator, I personally think the emergency equipment is off-limits. Everything else is fair game, up to and including playing Doom on the LCD screen that modern elevators seem to have.
- Comment on How do I make a phone call to (not from) an elevator speaker, just like what a debt collector once did? 2 weeks ago:
Could you explain more about what you observed? Many elevator phones have an inbound number, so that emergency responders can return a call, although it would be unlisted for obvious reasons. So far as I’m aware, the phone is akin to a normal phone line, rather than being a special line like a payphone. So if you did find the number, it may be possible to call it.
That said, I can’t endorse messing around with the emergency equipment in an elevator, even though it’s not actively in use. Enough prank calls might cause the property management to disconnect the line, making it unavailable when an actual emergency arises. And even though that would incur legal liability for the management, that would still mean someone who needed help couldn’t get help.
- Comment on What does this open source software notice mean? 2 weeks ago:
This is essentially a quick rundown of open-source software licensing. The notice is saying that the TikTok app uses some software that is owned by Facebook, but that Facebook has irrevocably licensed the software such that anyone (including you or TikTok) can use and distribute that software for free, provided they follow the few rules in the BSD 3-clause license, which has three clauses: 1) include these three clauses with any source code copy of Facebook’s software, 2) include these three clauses in the docs bundled with any compiled app that uses Facebook’s software, and 3) do not use Facebook’s name in a way that implies an endorsement or affiliation with Facebook.
TikTok can continue using that particular version of Facebook’s software until the heat death of the universe, and Facebook can never come back later and demand payment from TikTok or you or anyone for that software. But Facebook is still considered the owner, because they retain the right to relicense the software under different terms, perhaps with a license that doesn’t require including the copyright notice, for example. Likewise, Facebook has the right to sue to enforce the BSD 3-clause terms against anyone who isn’t abiding by those terms. But it looks like TikTok is abiding, since they posted the full BSD 3-clause terms, so Facebook can’t complain.
Note: Facebook could change the license for later versions of the software, but any versions prior would be unaffected. Integrating any software commercially always requires checking the license terms, and while open-source software has fairly standardized terms, diligence is still important and licenses do occasionally change.
- Comment on I want to learn designing IOT PCBs (with 2.4Ghz wireless) 2 weeks ago:
To start, it might be worth reviewing the recommended antenna traces for wireless ICs, since vendors often provide precomputed and validated reference designs in their data sheets. These are often what are made into breakout boards, and there’s a lot which can be learned by what these reference designs take into consideration.
I’ve not specifically done PCB designs with antennas, but I have done my own designs for high-speed differential signals, where the impedance of two traces have to be consistent along their length, whether side-by-side or on opposite sides of the PCB. As you observed, KiCAD can do a lot of this computation but good antenna design means even the pads that attach to the IC also need to be impedance-matched. And that requires both an understanding of where problems arise (eg when traces turn a corner), how to compute the effects (using KiCAD’s features), and whether the issue might not even make a big difference in overall performance.
- Comment on Rechargeable LED lamp 3 weeks ago:
I had the bright idea
Haha, I enjoyed that. Although you’re pursuing using parts from a flashlight, I wish to point out that LEDs are now fairly straightforward to put together into a full lighting solution. Generally, it would be an LED module, an optic, and the driver circuit. Maybe a heatsink too. Ok, maybe this is somewhat complicated lol
I’m not affiliated with that supplier, but I’ve bought from them before to build a custom headlight for a bicycle.
- Comment on What determines whether people are likely to purposely (but mistakenly) put two words together (without a space)? 3 weeks ago:
As you correctly observed, English is tricky and there aren’t too many hard rules with the language, which is aggravating for English learners but also highlights its flexibility, which is an important quality for the de facto language of science, aviation, international trade, etc. So to answer the question, I think there are multiple aspects which make a combined word more likely, including: 1) the constituent words are different parts-of-speech being combined into a noun, 2) a contraction whose spelling happens to be very similar to an existing word but is still mostly unambiguous, and 3) how likely the combined word appears in colloquial or subject-matter specific speech and writing.
Even a combo word that meets all three of those points is not guaranteed to be universally accepted as a new word, but some combo words get accepted even if they don’t meet most of those points. Starting with your examples, “greenhouse” certainly meets point #1, since “green” is an adjective and “house” is a noun, which combined form the new noun “greenhouse”. “login” does the same, although it also meets point #2, since it’s a contraction of “log in” (v.), meaning to sign into a web service. The same goes for “work out” (v) and workout (n, an exercise program for each day of week).
I personally always write “log in” when I mean the verb, and “login” to refer to the credentials needed to sign in. But that’s my CS degree showing. As such, I’m of the opinion that “login” as a verb is a typo, since it’s the wrong part-of-speech (a noun when a verb is needed). Same goes for “alot” (IMO, a typo) and “allot” (v, to allocate). Whether such typos are permissible depends on the quality of the writing, as “takecare” and “ofcourse” would be unacceptable in a dissertation but perfectly fine for an IRC chatroom for die-hard fans of British cooking shows. But I think most people in the latter group, if asked, would probably agree that “ofcourse” is a typo. Basic English literacy means we’re not going to hapazardly throwawaythewhitespace andtryto pretendthatitdoesnt matter.
Finally, prevalence, which is considered by many linguists to be the ultimate test of neologisms: if people use it and it’s understood, then it’s a word. But that rule needs to be viewed from the lens of the intended audience. For example, years and years ago, I understood the legal term “housecar” in the California Vehicle Code to mean something akin to a family saloon car, meaning a car suitable for transporting a whole family. This would contrast with a pick-up trucks, sports cars, and commercial vehicles. But my naivete was to not look up the actual definition, and I just wrongly assumed that definition because it made sense for “house” and “car” to combine in that way. The real definition is a car that is also a house, meaning an RV or motorhome. That just goes to show that – since I’m not a lawyer – I was not the audience to gauge whether “housecar” is a valid combo word or not. Whereas California-based lawyers would have likely recognized the meaning in short order.
Basically, each combo word is unique in its circumstances, but perhaps those three points I mentioned have a lot (haha) to do with whether a combo word achieves universal adoption. “alot” does not seem to have met the full acceptance test.
- Comment on Is there an implemented system of automated trucks anywhere that is fully operational? 3 weeks ago:
Can you be more precise about what level of automation these trucks should have? Other forms of transport like trains and aircraft have automation, but it’s not full automation and they accept that limitation as the technology develops.
SAE has a classification system for automation of the driving task, but this wouldn’t necessarily include the task of loading and unloading cargo, nor the paperwork management for consignments, all of which are part of the commercial truck driving job.
- Comment on [deleted] 3 weeks ago:
Answering the question as written and without any particular comment on the example given, yes, it can be manipulative to respond to allegations with a counter that the allegations are slanderous, but it’s not always manipulative. Though it does highlight the gap between what someone says and what they mean.
Some folks will argue that the term “slander” has lost its original meaning but I still ascribe to the legal definition which says it’s a form of defamation. That is, a falsehood being perpetuated about someone, regarding something that can be proved one way or another. Without defining the term, no one could sensibly answer the question here.
So does this mean when person X asserts slander, they’re saying they have a potential lawsuit? Possibly, but that’s the rub: “slander” is now colloquial shorthand for “all those things they said about me are lies”. It’s natural to refute unsavory descriptions about oneself, even in spite of attached evidence, so sometimes calling something as slanderous is a knee-jerk reaction, akin to saying “ow!” after stubbing one’s toe on the bed post.
But that’s the most charitable view. “Slander” can also be a rejection of the validity of the evidence, and that’s more a symptom of the “post-truth” era we’re currently in, where controversies are more newsworthy than the truth they purport to stand upon. In that sense, labeling allegations as slanderous is manipulative because it serves the purpose of misleading the audience, or encouraging them to not bother vetting or even looking at the evidence at all. And sometimes you can’t blame the audience: fact checking is difficult and boring.
I bemoan the use of legal terms in colloquial speech, as terms of law must be exact and precise, while colloquialisms must be free to express broad thoughts and ideas. But since laypeople are rarely asked to consider if a comment is actually legally actionable, and most off-the-cuff commentary isn’t, I won’t dwell on that aspect.
Sometimes it’s the original allegations which are genuinely manipulative, and it’s not manipulative to point out manipulation. Other times, no possible reading of the facts can save the remaining reputation of a genuinely awful person.
But what I will say is that a simple response of “it’s slander!” alone is not persuasive, IMO. If someone wants to be believed, they’ll have to put more effort into their defense than that, insofar as public perception is concerned. But if the evidence is bad, this shouldn’t be very hard to do.
The public and media might also bear some responsibility, if they will so easily equate “both sides” as having valid points when there’s an avalanche of evidence on one side and only bad evidence on the other. But other times, a factual question can be reasonably interpreted differently, and that’s fair too.
So I’m sorry to say that there’s no clear cut answer, whether it’s always or never manipulative. I’m not a lawyer, but their common adage is “it depends”.
- Comment on I made this oscillator 4 weeks ago:
I didn’t study analog design too closely in school, but I understand that the superheterodyne technique for frequency mixing can be used to do some rather interesting things, such as taking the difference between two high frequency signals. Some things are easier to do at high frequency and then brought down to audible frequency, I imagine.
Alternatively, a synth for dogs haha
- Comment on I made this oscillator 4 weeks ago:
Nice! I haven’t played around with analog stuff as much as I would like, but I’m curious what was the impetus for building this oscillator? Are you doing electronic synth stuff?
- Comment on PVC stand to hang my bow and arrows while practicing. 1 month ago:
What I like about this design is that if wind was an issue, it would be the simplest thing to fill the base with sand to anchor it down, without it being permanent, and without impacting its basic functionality. Brilliant and versatile!
- Comment on Bee-ing Creative 1 month ago:
It took me a few brain cycles to recognize that this was a spoon. Perhaps others were similarly momentarily confused.
- Comment on bypass controller on a cheap LED strip 1 month ago:
My assumption with this PCB is that it switches the GND, meaning 12v is always provided to the LEDs. So the trick is to find somewhere that has a permanent GND and then connect all the LED leads to that. But I don’t see a large enough spot to land three new leads, except maybe where R6 is.
You’ll have to verify if my assumption is accurate, although I do wonder if you could just get a different PSU outright. This sounds like a 12v LED strip, so any sufficiently sized 12v wall-wart would also suffice. Can you also clarify: you want this strip to be always-on and all-white, but the strip uses RGB LEDs? While it does produce white, it might not have a very high CRI and thus may be unpleasant for certain lighting applications. There are dedicated white LED strips which will perform a bit better for color rendition, and that could potentially be an issue if food needs to look appetizing under these cabinets.
- Comment on First attempts at cast iron restoration: Wagner skillets 2 months ago:
When doing research for this restoration, I did come across a suggestion about using the self cleaning feature on my oven. But some other comments suggested that self cleaning might put a lot of strain on the oven’s components, for a task which could also be achieved chemically.
So to see how my oven might behave, I set it to the highest temperature (550 F; 290 C) for 20 minutes. What happened was that the crud in the oven started smoking so badly that I had to cut the experiment short. Apparently I need to also clean my oven but I didn’t want to start a second project just to finish the first one. I’m lazy lol
So in my case, a hot oven was also a no-go. But a bonfire would have been awesome to do. For science, of course.
- Comment on First attempts at cast iron restoration: Wagner skillets 2 months ago:
Thank you! One of these will be a gift, and I’m keeping the other one. My hope is that it achieves heirloom status, seeing as some online references suggest this was manufactured sometime between 1935-1959. So just 35 more years and I can be sure it’ll be 100 years old!
