How about using LDAP? It’s a bit complicated to learn but it’s easy to integrate it in a bunch of applications and it allows you to manage user accounts and permissions in one central place.

Maybe try LLDAP which is a modern implementation (haven’t used it myself) which is designed to be simplified and I assume more welcoming to newcomers.

I believe that the following IP ranges

• 103.231.144.0/24
• 192.31.196.0/24
• 216.176.216.0/21
• 199.248.239.0/24
• 192.198.30.0/24
• 69.12.98.42

are engaged in highly suspicious activities

furthermore I can definitely say that I found some dirty pirates hiding at the following ip ranges:

• 175.45.176.0/24
• 175.45.177.0/24
• 175.45.178.0/24
• 175.45.179.0/24

my research clearly shows proof that those people are not just pirates but also engaged in highly illegal activities such as stealing BILLIONS of dollars and hacking who knows how many servers, and that’s only the crimes one can talk about online.

then just use fedora asahi remix because the asahi linux team did the work for you, also they would really appreciate some donations

Their search results constantly impress me and honestly it’s 10 bucks for unlimited searches, it’s worth it even if it’s not a business expense, plus since you’re paying for the service they’re less likely to track you. I wish their code was FOSS, but I’ll take it, still better than google, bing, and all the others I’ve tried.

Also they actively promote the small web and you can even personalize your search results by removing websites you don’t like from the searches (for example I have a lot of big tech websites blocked)

Actually other search engines do much better with Lemmy. Kagi’s search works wonders if you select the filter for Fediverse Forums. And you can assign that filter to a bang, such as !lemmy, so that when you search “!lemmy query here” it’ll search only on the fediverse A few examples:

And this ladies and gentlemen is another reason why we should try to escape big tech’s grasp.

if you program the firmware directly your program can be stored, but it requires you to also buy the firmware writing tool and the FPGA unlocked version of the product (FPGA can be locked after writing it naturally)

Maybe, I’ve never met him, but that changes nothing.

Linus Torvalds is a giant asshole and he doesn’t know how to talk to people, he’s still one of the most important people in tech.

He can learn once he understands the repercussions of his actions. Remember that he’s an autistic teenager, he has a lot to learn about life and especially morality.

If you’re not aware, the hack was performed by Arion Kurtaj, an 18 year old, who has been put in prison a psych ward in a uk prison. He hacked rockstar at a hotel, where he was left with no computers or phones, only to find that the TV had a chromecast, which he used to buy a phone and a keyboard (presumably by selling his monero).

• He hacked into all major uk telcom providers: EE, BT and Orange.
• He hacked into nvidia

This kid deserves a 7-8 digits salary as a pentester, not prison; plenty of pentesting companies would hire him in a heartbeat.

Don’t get me wrong, he deserves a long and drawn out lesson on morals, but also a stellar salary where he can do what he’s doing for the right side.

EDIT: I have made a mistake in my original comment, which has been pointed out. My bad, he’s technically in a psych ward in a uk prison, because he’s aggressive and unstable. I still stand by what I said (and what I clarified in the comments below), but I wanted to correct the record

what FOSS library do you maintain?

Quick aside, there won’t be a USB D (unless the USB people change their mind yet again), it will be something different from USB. The idea was to have USB A be what you plug on your source and B on your destination and was designed as a way to avoid power surges in the original 1.0 spec because the A side was physically different from the B side you weren’t ever going to plug in something that sends power to something that receives power (basically it prevented users from breaking their devices on accident). USB C changed that with a chip on each cable that handles negotiation before agreeing on a power spec

The concept of competition among tech companies has done a complete 180 on its original meaning. It’s no longer predominantly about crafting superior products; rather, it’s become a race to secure the largest amount of investor funding.

In this transformed landscape, the product itself and revenue generation often take a backseat, or at best, hold a tertiary importance. The heart of customer-centric ethos, especially crucial elements like data security, are now distressingly overlooked. What matters is getting the next investment to become the next “unicorn” and be acquired for billions of dollars. Silicon Valley Companies want the easy way out, do only a fraction of the work for an exponential amount of the benefits.

Don’t get me wrong, there are reasons to seek investment, getting a good product built is actually complex and you actually need a lot of different people working on it. The alternative is losing years of your life on a sisyphean ordeal of soul-crushing, hundred-hour work weeks (and that’s real work, not “let me check twitter” work), making you question your life choices and whether you should just throw it all away, abandon technology, become a hermit and move to a shed in the mountains.

The problem is that the EXPECTATION today is that you’re gonna build a third of a product, care about 1% of the actual business behind it and then pivoting exclusively to the pursuit of investment, letting everything else rot

I was referring to his edit which is:

Edit: Oh god… It’s Rossman. Of course it’s dishonest.

And my argument was that it’s fine to disagree with him (especially if you have conflicting evidence), but I don’t think that it’s warranted to call Rossmann dishonest

By the way, I don’t even necessarily disagree with his main opinion, the video title is clickbaity for sure

How is he dishonest? It’s fine if you disagree with his opinions, but saying he’s dishonest is very… well… dishonest :P

Agreed, but it kinda already is… Ever gone to a library?

First time I’m hearing about Bookwyrm actually, that’s pretty cool.

To be fair, the allegations haven’t been proven and allegedly he was 13 at the time… not that it makes it any better, but context matters

the results for me are hilarious, who knew people in my general area downloaded so much porn… and… weird porn at that

it’s literally only porn, who the heck torrents porn?

some of the most hilariously sounding things on that list:

As time marches on, my skepticism about there being ONE smart google employee only grows.

they can’t translate chinese, they receive a bunch of symbols and have a book with a bunch of instructions on how to answer based on the input (I can’t speak chinese, so I will just go with japanese for my example)

imagine the following rule set:

• If the sentence starts with the characters “元気”, the algorithm should commence its response with “はい”, “うん” or “多分” and then repeat the two characters, “元気”.
• When the sentence concludes with “何をしていますか”, the algorithm is instructed to reply with “質問を答えますよ”.
• If the sentence is precisely “日本語わかりますか？”, the algorithm has the option to respond with either “え？もちろん！” or “いや、実は大和語だけで話す”.

input: 元気ですか？今何をしていますか？

output: うん, 元気. 質問を答えますよ :P

input: 日本語わかりますか？

output: え？もちろん！

With an exhaustive set of, say, 7 billion rules, the algorithm can mechanically map an input to an output, but this does not mean that it can speak Japanese.

Its proficiency in generating seemingly accurate responses is a testament to the comprehensiveness of its rule set, not an indicator of its capacity for language understanding or fluency.

While John McCarthy and other sources offer valuable definitions, none of them fully encompass the qualities that make an entity not just “clever” but genuinely intelligent in the way humans are: the ability for abstract thinking, problem-solving, emotional understanding, and self-awareness.

If we accept the idea that any computer performing a task indistinguishable from a human is “intelligent,” then we’d also have to concede that simple calculators are intelligent because they perform arithmetic as accurately as a human mathematician. This reduces the concept of intelligence to mere task performance, diluting its complexity and richness.

By the same logic, a wind-up toy that mimics animal movement would be “intelligent” because it performs a task—walking—that in another context, i.e., a living creature, is considered a sign of basic intelligence. Clearly, this broad classification would lead to absurd results

I think we’re splitting hairs here. Look, you’re technically correct, but none of what you said disproves my point does it? Perhaps I should edit my comment to make it even more clear that it’s not EXACTLY the same technology, but I don’t think you’d argue with me that it’s an evolution of it, right?

I can disprove what you’re saying with four words: “The Chinese Room Experiment”.

Imagine a room where someone who doesn’t understand Chinese receives questions in Chinese and consults a rule book to send back answers in Chinese. To an outside observer, it looks like the room understands Chinese, but it doesn’t; it’s just following rules.

Similarly, advanced language models can answer complex questions or write code, but that doesn’t mean they truly understand or possess rationality. They’re essentially high-level “rule-followers,” lacking the conscious awareness that humans have. So, even if these models perform tasks and can fool humans to make them believe they’re intelligent, it’s not a valid indicator of genuine intelligence.

you’re posing an unfalsifiable statement as a question

“prove to me that you don’t have an invisible purple unicorn friend that’s only visible to you”

yes, as I said it’s an EVOLUTION of markov chains, but the idea is the same. As you pointed out one major difference is that instead of accounting for only the last 1-5 words, it accounts for a larger context window. The LSTM is just a parler trick. Read the paper on the original transformer model https://browse.arxiv.org/pdf/1706.03762.pdf

it’s not about feeling intellectually superior; words matter. I’ll grant you one thing, it’s definitely “artificial”, but it’s not intelligence!

LLMs are an evolution of Markov Chains. We have known how to create something similar to LLMs for decades, getting close to a century, we just lacked the raw horse power and the literal hundreds of terabytes of data needed to get there. Anyone who knows how markov chains work can figure out how an LLM works.

I’m not downplaying the development needed to get an LLM up and running, yes, it’s harder than just taking the algorithm for a markov chain, but the real evolution is how much computer power we can shove into a small amount of space now.

Calling LLMs AI would be the same as calling a web crawler AI, or a moderation bot, or many similar things.

I recommend you to read about the chinese room experiment

I keep telling people that, but for some, what amount to essentially a simulacra really can pass off as human and no matter how much you try to convince them they won’t listen

sigh 'member when computers were there to serve you and not the other way around? pepperidge farm 'members

I recommend infuse over swiftfin. Swiftfin is FOSS, so it has that going for it, but Infuse works better right now.

Xmpp is far from death. Just because many started to use matrix instead doesn’t mean it’s dead. Even though matrix is a Ressource and performance nightmare much more so than xmpp will ever be.

How is matrix a performance nightmare? been running a matrix server for years with almost no issues. I guess the only exception was the few times I ran out of hdd space, but that’s it.

Xmpp is a an official Standard.unlikr things like matrix.

What’s an official standard? Matrix is a protocol just like xmpp and the specs are public, just like with xmpp.

Matrix is a nightmare to selfhost, too.

It’s literally as easy as running a docker container and editing a yaml file, at least for synapse.

definitely agree, but it shouldn’t be just funds for server costs, also funds that go towards the developers of lemmy. if we want lemmy to improve, this needs to become the developer’s primary full-time job, and the only way to do that is to have a much more substantial amount of funds coming their way each month.

I agree with what you’re saying, but remember that open source software cannot happen without individual contributions and donations. If you have some money to spare, even just $1 dollar, please consider donating it to the Lemmy developers. It’s obviously not a requirement, but it helps keep the project going!

well I did say:

with the exception of routers, and other consumer appliances

but definitely, use whatever tool you like

The point is that, if Linux was about choice (at least that’s what I’m told rather often than not), a particular init system should not be a component on which other components depend.

I mostly agree with this, but there is nothing I (or anyone) can do to change that without significantly hindering my user experience, and the benefits are minor. That’s akin to saying that you prefer gopher as a protocol, so you won’t use HTTP. Gopher is better according to some, but the world has decided on their protocol of choice already, there is no reason to fight it.

Sounds like a glorified rsync to me. I can imagine how this could come in handy if you have a whole set of identical machines that should serve the exact same purpose. I never had this situation in my own environments yet.

Come on man, that’s not what it is, I may have explained it wrong, but imagine being able to define the entire structure of your OS (including every tool installed, with your preferences) in a simple config file.

So do I, and the BSD license is a FOSS license. That does not necessarily mean that you are allowed to sell my code - or that I must not sell mine. Nobody said that FOSS requires “free of charge”. And if you spend quite a lot of money, I’m even sure that Microsoft will gladly sell you the Windows code. I a way, all code is free - it only depends on your bank account.

I knew we weren’t gonna agree on this, haha.

I agree on one thing, free doesn’t mean free of charge. It’s my firm belief that one ought to contribute financially to open-source projects from which one derives substantial benefits. However, I also maintain that code should be open and accessible to all, without any monetary charge.

In the case of windows, for example I would want the code to be open and available to anyone. I would even accept a situation where the code is completely available, albeit under a highly restrictive license. This license could permit you to study and learn from the code, but prohibit any actions such as creating your own version or selling it. This way, open-source principles are upheld, while Microsoft’s rights are protected.

Indeed, each system bears its distinctive advantages and drawbacks, and the optimal choice often hinges on the specific requirements of the task at hand. Nonetheless, I believe that OpenBSD’s utility is limited in contemporary scenarios.

Culture

It’s undeniable that OpenBSD has spawned important technologies under its “shut up and hack” mantra, cultivating an environment conducive to technical breakthroughs. Conversely, the Linux ecosystem too has been a breeding ground for major projects, Docker and Git being just a couple of examples. The ethos within each community can differ considerably, contingent upon the project or distribution. The widespread popularity of Linux may attract a varied spectrum of users, some less technically adept than the typical OpenBSD user. However, that doesn’t mean it’s short on technologically adept contributors.

Predictability

I’ve chosen to make peace with systemd, seeing it as a necessary compromise, as it has become the preferred choice amongst the developer community. Unless one fancies rewriting systemd .unit files each time something needs to be installed (which I don’t), the practical choice is to work with it.

Concerning the upgrading process, many Linux distributions today offer smooth upgrades without necessitating a complete reinstall. Your encounter may rely on the particular distribution you’re using. Perhaps it’s been a while since you last used Linux. I haven’t come across a distro that requires a complete overhaul in quite some time. Rolling release distros are now increasingly prevalent and are even suggested for novices.

With nixos, which is my distribution of choice for the foreseeable future, I have an attribute that your OpenBSD system lacks: reproducibility. I can transfer a handful of configuration files to a brand new computer and replicate my system precisely, encompassing all my installed packages and configurations, including those in $XDG_CONFIG_HOME. It will literally recreate the same exact environment.

History

And both of them are inspired by Unix, what’s your point? :P

Why should a company that needs to make money selling software be “antiquated” simply because (for example) some of its algorithms are trade secrets?

I think we’re not gonna agree on this, but I believe that all code that matters should be FOSS, there is no reason for a company to keep their algorithms as trade secrets, and if anything being open source can only improve the world, not hinder it.

That’s an interesting question. The percentage of servers (with the exception of routers, and other consumer appliances) that run OpenBSD (and variants) is actually extremely low when compared to the amount of servers running Linux. That being said you CAN set it up yourself, rust can easily compile to a binary that works with openbsd by using the target x86_64-unknown-openbsd.

As another commenter said here, *BSD is very far behind the developments of Linux, when compared to developer experience. And realistically, unless you’re a huge organization that can dedicate a team of engineers just to manage your system, or you’re someone who likes getting into the weeds, there is no reason to ever use *BSD in a modern system.

rather than paying for youtube premium you should use an adblocker, or download all the videos you watch, then donate the money to creators you watch. if everyone who paid for youtube premium just decided to split the cost of the subscription between the creators they watch, creators would make a lot more money and as a bonus you hurt Alphabet, one of the worst companies in the world. It’s a win win